Skip to main content

Full text of "Lectures in divinity delivered in the University of Cambridge"

See other formats 


^Toronto   (Einibcrsttj) 


I'RKSKNTKD     BY 


The   University  of  Cambridge 

through  the   Committee  formed  hi 
the  Old  Country 

to  aid  in  replacing  the   loss  caused  by  the   Disastrous   Fin 
of  Fehntary  the   Utth, 


LECTURES    IN   DIVINITY 


DELIVERED 


IN   THE   UNIVERSITY  OF   CAMBRIDGE, 


BY 


JOHN  HEY,  D.D., 

AS    NORRISIAN    PROFESSOR, 

FROM  1780    TO  1795. 


THE    THIRD   EDITION   REVISED, 
IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 


VOLUME    I. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  PITT  PRESS, 

BY  JOHN  W.  PARKER,  PRINTER  TO  THE  UNIVERSITY. 


lf.DCCO.XLI. 


' 


ADVERTISEMENT    TO    THE    THIRD    EDITION 
OF  THE  LECTURES   IN  DIVINITY. 


THE  second  edition  of  the  Lectures  was  printed  on  account 
of  the  University ;  and  had  the  advantage  of  numerous  small 
corrections,  left  by  the  Author,  in  a  particular  copy. 

In  this  third  impression  of  the  Lectures,  the  second  edition 
has  been  followed. 

« 
The   second   edition  of  the  work  was  printed  page  for 

page,  and  almost  line  for  line,  with  the  first.  In  the  inner 
margin  of  the  present  edition,  the  corresponding  pages  of 
those  editions  are  regularly  given :  — for  example,  the  con 
tents  of  the  259th  page  of  the  fourth  volume  of  either  of 
the  former  editions  will  be  found  in  the  497th  page  of  the 
second  volume  of  the  present  edition. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  add  that  the  brief  memoir 
of  Dr.  John  Hey,  prefixed  to  the  last  as  well  as  to  the  pre 
sent  edition  of  the  Lectures,  was  drawn  up  by  his  brother, 
Dr.  Richard  Hey. 

T.  T. 

CAMBRIDGE,  October  1841. 


ADVERTISEMENT,    BY    THE    AUTHOR, 
TO    THE    FIRST    EDITION. 


SOME  parts  of  the  work  now  presented  to  the  public  may 
seem  to  require  an  apology,  as  not  being  composed  with  that 
formality,  which  may  be  thought  requisite.  The  fact  is, 
these  Lectures  were  not  written  in  order  to  be  read ;  the 
writing  was  merely  a  preparation  for  speaking.  To  revise 
them  now,  and  give  them  an  appearance  fit  to  meet  the  eye  of 
a  critical  reader,  would  be  a  work  of  much  time,  and  perhaps 
of  little  utility.  Writings  have  often  been  rendered  obscure 
by  too  laboured  a  correction,  and  by  endeavours  to  reduce 
matter  into  the  least  possible  compass.  This  apology,  it  is 
hoped,  may  suffice,  if  some  expressions  are  found  of  rather  a 
familiar  sort,  and  if  some  remain  in  the  form  of  queries. 

With  respect  to  subject  matter,  every  reader  of  Lectures 
should  be  aware,  that  they  do  not  pretend  to  be  wholly 
original.  If  the  Lecturer  compiles  with  judgment  what  will 
be  most  useful  to  his  particular  hearers,  and  sometimes 
advances  a  step  or  two  beyond  his  predecessors,  he  does  all 
that  ought  to  be  expected  from  him.  In  examining  what  has 
been  already  said,  he  will  naturally  think  for  himself,  from 
whence  something  original  will  result ;  and,  if  one  man  im 
proves  one  subject  a  little,  and  another  another,  there  is  an 
advancement  of  knowledge  upon  the  whole. 

Where  subjects  have  occasioned  much  dispute,  and  no 
decision  has  been  made  upon  them,  in  which  the  generality 
have  acquiesced,  such  as  those  relating  to  languages  and 
customs  of  remote  antiquity,  it  may  often  be  better  to  content 
one's  self  with  giving  clear  accounts  of  old  opinions,  than  to 
aim  at  establishing  some  new  one. 


VHl  MEMOIR    OF    THE    AUTHOR. 

founder:  and  he  was,  each  time,  re-elected.  In  1795,  he  ceased 
to  be  Professor :  being  too  old,  by  the  Will,  to  be  re-elected, 
and  having  declined  to  vacate  the  professorship,  in  1794,  in 
order  to  be  re-elected  within  the  prescribed  age. 

When  Tutor,  in  Sidney  College,  he  gave  Lectures  in  Mo 
rality  :  which  were  attended  by  several  persons  voluntarily 
(amongst  whom  were  the  late  Mr.  Pitt  and  other  persons  of 
rank),  besides  those  pupils  whose  attendance  was  required. 
These  Lectures  have  not  been  printed.  His  Lectures  in  Divi 
nity  are  before  the  public ;  having  been  printed  at  the  Univer 
sity  Press,  1796 — 1798,  and  published  in  four  volumes  octavo. 
He  also  published  seven  Sermons,  at  different  times ;  and  a 
Poem  on  the  Redemption,  which  gained  Seaton's  Prize  in  the 
University  in  1763;  and  Discourses  on  the  Malevolent  Sen 
timents,  in  one  volume,  in  1801.  And  in  1811  he  printed,  without 
publishing,  General  Observations  on  the  Writings  of  St.  Paul. 

In  1814  he  divested  himself  of  the  whole  of  his  ecclesiastical 
preferment ;  which  was  merely  the  two  livings  mentioned 
above.  And  he  removed  to  London  in  October :  having 
resigned  Calverton  at  Lady-day,  and  Passenham  on  the  10th  of 
October.  From  that  time  he  continued  in  London  to  his  death  : 
growing  feeble  in  body,  till,  without  painful  disease,  he  sunk 
under  that  feebleness ;  retaining  to  the  last  a  soundness  of 
mind,  and  giving,  to  every  business  that  came  before  him,  a 
remarkable  degree  of  that  persevering  attention  which  had 
evidently  been,  with  him,  a  matter  of  strict  duty  through  a 
long  course  of  years.  Had  a  mitre  been  placed  on  his  head 
(which  was  at  least  once,  from  good  authority,  understood  to 
be  highly  probable),  he  appears  likely  to  have  discharged  the 
duties  imposed  by  it  with  the  same  steady  and  principled 
perseverance. 

He  is  buried  in  the  burying-ground  of  St.  John's  Chapel, 
St.  John's  Wood,  in  the  parish  of  Marylebonc :  in  which 
parish  he  died. 


BOOK    I. 

OF   DIVINITY,   AS   COMMON   TO   ALL   SECTS 
OF  CHRISTIANS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

GENERAL     INTRODUCTION. 

1.  IN  undertaking  a  large  work,  it  must  be  useful  to  have 
right  views  of  the  nature  of  it; — without  these,  the  work  can 
neither  be  so  improving,  nor  so  pleasing  and  interesting,  as  it 
might  be.      He,   who  has  too  high  notions  of  the  task  before 
him,  will  be  deterred  from  attempting  it ;  he,  who  has  too  low 
notions  of  it,  will  begin  it  too  lightly,  and  will  be  disgusted 
when  reality  does  not  answer  to  his  sanguine  and  visionary 
expectations l. 

2.  If  right  views  are  so  useful,  in  what  do  they  consist? — 
In  seeing  the  extent  of  the  whole  work ;  the  degree  of  perfec 
tion  which  it  admits  of;  the  connexion,  which  the  several  parts 
have  with  each  other,  so  as  to  judge  whether  a  part  can  be 
studied   separately  ;    the  necessary  difficulty  of  studying  any 
part ;   and  the  degree  of  present  pleasure,  which  may  be  ex 
pected  to  arise  from  the  study  rightly  pursued. 

3.  The  extent  of  our  undertaking  will  appear  by  and  by. 
Let  us,  then,  take  notice  of  the  degree  of  perfection,  which 
seems  to  be  attainable  in  pursuing  it.     The  chief  thing  here 
to  be  observed  is,  that  arguments  and  doctrines,  tenets,  opi 
nions,  are  formed  by  the  human  mind  gradually.     At  first,  a 
man  has  a  glimpse  of  something :  he  examines  it,  sees  what  is 
for  and  what  against  it ;   collects  matter,  which   at  first  is  a 
sort  of  chaos ;    arranges ;    sees  new  supports,  new  objections  ; 
works  his  thought  into  some  form  ;  surmounts  difficulties  ;  re 
views  his  train  of  ideas,  ere  long,  with  ease  and  satisfaction ; 
confirms  his  notion  by  experience,  establishes  it  finally2.      The 
whole  course  of  his  operation  resembles  that  of  an  artist,  who 
gradually  brings  a  rude  block  of  marble  into  a  pleasing  form. 
We  must  not  think,  when  a  philosopher  or  a  divine  is  so  en 
raptured  with  a  new  discovery  as  to  sacrifice  to  the  muses,  or 

1  Luke  xiv.  25—33.  -  Acts  xvii.  27. 

VOL.  I.  1 


2  GENERAL    INTRODUCTION.  [I.  i.  4,  5. 

leap  out  of  a  bath  and  run  about  the  streets  crying  eupnKa,  I. 
that  his  idea  has  acquired  all  that  regularity  and  neatness, 
with  which  it  afterwards  appears  in  well- written  books ;  in 
such  elements  as  those  of  Euclid.  It  often  happens,  that  an 
opinion  does  not  come  to  maturity  in  a  single  age.  Therefore 
it  is  always  right  to  ask,  in  what  state  of  philosophy  or  the 
ology  (for  the  case  is  the  same  with  both)  we  are  at  present : 
this  must  promote  modesty  in  the  teacher,  and  patience  in  the 
learner.  And,  if  a  teacher  offers  any  notion  of  his  own,  as 
newly  conceived,  allowances  should  be  made  accordingly  :  if  an 
opinion  is  old,  it  may  be  expected  to  be  the  more  definite. 

4.  Learning  too  has  its  variations.     It  is  in  some  respects 
progressive,  but  in  others  it  is  retrograde.     A  man  may  pass  a 
long  time  in  the  invention  of  that,   which  he  can  explain  to 
others  in  a  very  short  time :   this  causes  an  increase  of  know 
ledge  ;    but  the   subjects   of  inquiry  multiply,  and   this  may    3 
cause  a  decrease  of  knowledge  in  particular  subjects.     When 
there  are  few  things  to  know,  a  man  may  know  every  thing, 
as  far  as  others  know :   but,  when  there  are  a  great  number  of 
things  to  study,  a  man  must  either  be  wholly  ignorant  of  some 
things,   or  know  but  little  of  any.     Sometimes,   new  sources 
of  knowledge  are  opened ;   as  when  Herculaneum  was  disco 
vered  : — sometimes,   old  sources  are  stopped  up ;    as  by  the 
irruptions  of  Barbarians1  into  an  improved  country. —  Some 
times,  learning  lies  unnoticed  in  libraries ;  those,  who  read  and 
think,  fancy  they  are  discovering   something  new,   and  then 
find,  that  their  discoveries  have  been  made  long  ago. 

All  this  is  as  applicable  to  theological  learning  as  to  any 
other  kind.  We  should  therefore  ask  in  what  state  of  its 
progress  or  regress  our  learning  or  knowledge  is,  in  any  point, 
and  let  that  regulate  our  feelings  and  expectations.  There 
have  been  times,  when  the  Hebrew  language  was  more  culti 
vated  than  it  is  at  present :  the  solidity  of  interpretations  must 
always  be  expected  to  be  proportioned  to  the  prevailing  know 
ledge  of  original  languages. 

5.  It  may  be  proper,  before  we  proceed,  to  deduce  some 
particular  consequences  from  what  has  been  already  remarked. 
And  first,  increase  of  true  judgment  and  rational  knowledge  is 
always  productive  of  an  increase  of  candor  and  modesty  ;  as 
increase  of  false  judgment  and  ill  directed  knowledge   is   of 

1   Hume's   Posthumous   Dialogues,  p.       andria,  A. u.  (>4fi;  and  the  sacking  of  Con- 
«'»1> — The  burning  of  the  library  at  Alex-       stantiuople,  A.  D,  1204.    Harris,  vol.  iv. 


I.  i.   G.]  GENERAL    INTRODUCTION.  3 

I.  pedantry  and  mystery.  When  we  undertake  any  thing  in  an 
improved  age,  we  may  have  confidence  consistently  with  mo 
desty  ;  because  our  confidence  is  not  in  ourselves,  but  in  the 

4>  candor  and  indulgence  of  others.  This  decrease  of  pedantry 
is  remarkable  in  lawyers  and  physicians,  at  present. 

6.  Again,  it  follows,  from  the  gradual  improvement  of 
judgment  and  knowledge,  that  we  need  not  be  ashamed  at 
any  time  to  declare,  that  our  judgment  is  in  suspense;  or  to 
retract  an  opinion  which  we  have  once  professed.  From  the 
progressive  nature  of  mental  acquirements,  nothing  is  more 
probable,  than  that  we  should  see  arguments  on  different  sides 
of  a  question,  whose  comparative  weights  we  cannot  immedi 
ately  determine;  or  that,  on  farther  examination,  we  should 
discern  truth  where  we  had  not  discerned  it  before.  Improve 
ment  cannot  be  made  but  by  bringing  to  light  error  and  im 
perfection  ;  it  is  very  idle  therefore  to  praise  improvement, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  annex  any  disgrace  to  acknowledging 
error.  Men  do  so  without  reflecting.  They  naturally  dislike 
error,  and  in  a  degree  despise  those  who  err,  which  indeed 
often  deters  men  from  owning  their  mistakes.  The  unthink 
ing  flatter  themselves  with  the  expectation  of  an  infallible 
guide ;  in  law  and  physic  they  are  impatient  if  they  have  not 
one ;  and  they  cannot  easily  respect  a  guide  in  religious  mat 
ters,  who  disclaims  infallibility.  Besides,  they  say,  he  has  the 
sure  word  of  God : — no  doubt  the  scripture  is  true,  but  it  may 
be  falsely  interpreted ;  and  all  that  any  man  should  really  be 
understood  to  mean,  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  word  of  God,"  is 
human  interpretation  of  it. — Natural  religion  they  will  allow 
to  be  in  some  sense  uncertain :  yet  sometimes  it  is  by  notions 
of  natural  religion,  by  our  conceptions  of  the  wisdom  and  good 
ness  of  God,  that  we  explore  the  sense  of  his  written  word. 
We  have  several  instances  of  the  ingenuousness  here  spoken 

5  of,  in  men  remarkable  for  their  abilities  and  knowledge2.  These 
consequences  being  noted,  we  will  proceed. 


2  The  modesty  and  diffidenceof  the  great 
Origcn  are  much  celebrated.  See  Lard. 
Works,  vol.  IT.  under  Origen,  Sect.  2.  and 
Cavfs  Hist.  Lit.  vol.  i.  p.  11,5.  col.  1. 

Cranrner's  retracting,  is  worthy  of 
mention,  as  given  by  Gilpin.  See  his 
Life  of  Cranmer,  p.  222. 

The  learned  William  Wotton  retracts, 
vol.  i.  Misna;  p.  314.  Augustin  has  pub 
lished  two  books  of  retractations.  Arch 


bishop  Usher  retracts  an  opinion ;  see  de 
Symb.  p.  17.  Michaelis  Introd.  Lec 
tures,  Sect.  68,  quarto,  does  the  same, 
about  the  Codex  Argenteus.  Mr  Hume's 
note  at  the  beginning  of  his  Essay  on  the 
Populousness  of  Ancient  Nations  might 
be  mentioned,  as  also  Locke's  confessing 
he  did  not  understand  1  Cor.  xi.  10.  And 
Cicero's  passage,  which  is  the  motto  to 
Locke's  Essay  on  the  Understanding. 

1 — 2 


4  GENERAL    INTRODUCTION.  [I.  1.  7—9- 

7-  After  seeing  what  kind  and  degree  of  perfection  we  I. 
may  hope  to  attain,  let  us  observe  how  the  several  parts  of 
our  undertaking  are  connected  together;  there  is,  doubtless, 
some  connexion  between  them  all ;  but  it  must  not  be  thought 
like  that  which  we  find,  in  mathematics.  Our  work  might  be 
divided  into  several  parts,  each  of  which  might  be  studied  pro 
fitably  ; — when  subjects  occur  in  different  parts,  it  is  natural 
to  say,  that  they  have  been  before  explained  ;  but  yet  the  want 
of  the  explanation  of  what  is  past  will  seldom  make  the  present 
unintelligible.  As  a  man  may  read  the  odes  of  Horace  sepa 
rately  from  the  epistles,  or  vice  versa,  though  it  is  better  he 
should  read  both,  so  may  he  take  separately  almost  any  parts 
of  a  system  of  divinity. 

8.  The  difficulty  of  our  study  is  such  as  rather  to  require 
patience  and  simplicity,  than  depth  or  acuteness  of  judgment: 
the  languages  which  divines  want,   may  be  learnt  gradually, 
without  any  great  exertions  in  any  one  part ;   the  chief  diffi 
culties,  as  to  expressions  in  divinity,  arise  from  not  considering 
them  as  popular.      And  though  something  must  be  said  con 
cerning  our  motives,   and  our  voluntary  actions,   as    well   as    6 
concerning  the  nature  of  God,  and  the  part  which  he  acts  in 
the  salvation  of  mankind,  and  the  divine  decrees,  yet  it  seems 
as  if  nothing  more  were  wanting,  I  do  not  say  to  make  them 
perfectly  clear  >  but  to  prevent  all  dissension  about  them,  than 
simplicity1: — men  may  be  said   to   understand  any  subject, 
when  they  agree,  that  they  see  all  that  can  be  seen  of  it  at 
present  by  man. 

9.  Lastly,  men  are  apt  to  have  wrong  views  of  the  kind  of 
task  on  which  we  now  enter,  in  respect  of  the  present  pleasure 
which  it  may  afford.      There  is  nothing  more  interesting  and 
affecting  to  man,  than  religion,  when  he  is  free  from  prejudices 
against  it,  and  is  rightly  disposed2.     Men   who  affect  to  be 
philosophers,  hear  the  vulgar  speak  of  things  as  known,  which 
are  not  thoroughly  understood  ;   and,   in  order  to  avoid  this, 
they   run   into  notions   ten  times  more   unphilosophical,   than 
any  popular  superstition3.     In  order  to  be  philosophers,  they 


1  Dr  Balguy,  p.  103.  Hut  his  whole  ilih 
Discourse  is  on  Difficulties  in  Religion. 

-  Sec-  Dr  Powell's  lid  Discour.se;  p.  II. 
and  4.1.  u  whither  the  pursuit  itself  tend- 
ed,  to  virtue  and  to  happiness*'1 

:;  For  instance,  they  hear  men  talk  weak 
ly  about  particular  instances  of  ,N/,/Yi7.v,-  and 


thence  very  imphilosophically  conclude, 
that  there  are  no  intelligences  between 
man  and  God,  or  none  which  influence  the 
happiness  of  their  fellow-creatures.  A 
notion  more  unworthy  of  a  true  philoso 
pher,  than  the  most  childish  or  the  most 
anile  superstition  that  ever  was  professed. 


I.  ii,  iii.  ].]  REASONING  A  rmoni.  5 

I.  cease  to  be  men :  they  lose  the  pleasure  of  the  devout  affec 
tions,  and  stop  their  ears  to  the  voice  of  both  reason  and 
experience :  ecclesiastical  history  does,  to  be  sure,  tell  us  of 
some  who  have  made  religion  an  instrument  of  ambition ;  but 
it  seems  to  me  to  give  us  events  and  characters  more  interest 
ing  than  profane,  when  seen  with  proper  allowances ;  nav  it 
sometimes  describes  actions  so  great,  noble,  and  affecting,  that 
it  might  supply  the  place  even  of  romance  and  fiction  itself. 

7  It  is  true  indeed,  that  every  pursuit,  though  undertaken 
merely  for  pleasure,  will  bring  on  disgust  sometimes ;  and  if 
we  are  so  capricious  as  to  desist,  the  moment  we  cease  to  be 
entertained  and  attracted,  we  can  succeed  in  nothing ;  not 
even  in  painting,  music,  or  games  of  skill.  Principles  of  duty, 
and  regard  to  plan  and  uniformity,  must  do  their  part  now 
and  then,  even  in  attaining  a  pleasurable  accomplishment :  but, 
when  we  have  acted  a  while  from  duty,  pleasure  will  return. 

With  these  views  of  the  work  before  us,  we  may  venture  to 
undertake  it. 


CHAPTER    II. 

OF    THE    EXTENT    OF     THE     STUDY    OF    RELIGIOUS     TRUTH; 
AND     FIRST,    OF     ITS     TWO    PRINCIPAL     SOURCES. 

THE  first  source  of  religious  truth  is  reasoning  on  the  na 
ture  of  God;  the  second  is,  studying  the  scriptures.  How 
far  the  streams  derived  from  these  sources  extend,  it  must  be 
our  next  business  to  examine. 


CHAPTER    III. 

OF     THE     MANNER     OF     ACQUIRING     RIGHT     NOTIONS     OF     THE 
NATURE    OF    GOD;    AND    FIRST,    OF    REASONING    A    PRIORI. 

1.  IF  any  one  required  a  brief  account  of  what  is  meant 
by  natural  theology,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  we  actually 
acquire  our  ideas  of  the  Supreme  Being,  some  such  answer  as 
the  following  might  be  given. 

We  are  so  accustomed  to  cause  and  effect,  that  when  we 
see  an  event,  we  cannot  rest  without  ascribing  it  to  some  cause; 


6  REASONING    A   PRIORI.  [I.  ill.  2,  ^>. 

and  the  more  important  the  event,  the  more  anxious  are  we  to   I. 
account  for  it. 

As  the  most  important  events  are  usually  produced  by 
intelligent  beings  within  our  knowledge,  we  are  inclined  to 
ascribe  all  important  events  to  such  beings,  when  their  causes 
are  unknown :  and  if  the  events  are  too  difficult  for  man,  we 
rise  higher  in  the  scale  of  intelligent  causes.  We  feel  our  own 
impotence  at  every  moment :  we  can  provide  nothing,  we  can 
hinder  nothing :  the  united  powers  of  man  cannot  stop  a  shower 
of  rain,  or  raise  a  blade  of  grass.  When  we  come  to  compare 
events,  and  to  take  them  all  into  our  minds  at  once,  when  we 
observe  that  there  is  an  unity  of  design  in  them  all,  considered 
collectively,  we  ascribe  them  all  ultimately  to  one  great  intel 
ligence,  and  consider  him  as  a  person.  We  next  set  about 
conceiving  the  particular  qualities  of  this  person ;  and,  when 
we  have  combined  them  into  one  character,  we  trace  out  the  9 
marks  of  them ;  of  wisdom,  benevolence,  power  :  thus  familiar 
ized,  as  it  were,  to  this  august  person,  we  consider  in  what  he 
is  to  be  distinguished  from  man.  We  find  ourselves  under  a 
necessity  of  giving  his  qualities  human  names :  as  these  quali 
ties  are  causes  of  similar  effects  with  those  of  human  qualities, 
and  as  man  knows  no  others,  all  we  can  do  is,  to  acknowledge 
that  his  qualities  may  in  reality  be  very  different  in  kind  from 
those  which  are  called  by  the  same  names  in  man.  Sometimes, 
we  think  how  things  could  possibly  be,  without  supposing  a 
God  always  existing ;  and  we  find  ourselves  wholly  at  a  loss 
to  conceive  a  time  when  no  Deity  existed.  This  seems  to  con 
tain  every  part  of  natural  theology. 

2.  When  we  reason  from  cause  to  effect,  we  are  said  to 
reason  a  priori ;  when  from  effect  to  cause,  a  posteriori :  it 
seems  probable,  that  men  have  begun  with  the  latter ;   never 
theless  we  will  follow  the  customary  order,  which  indeed  is  the 
most  natural  after  the  first  analytical  train  of  arguing  has  been 
pursued. 

3.  We  are  said  to  prove  the  existence  of  God  a  priori,  when 
we  shut  our  eyes  to  all  the  effects  of  his  power,  and  consider 
only  whether  it  is  possible,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  there 
should  not  have  existed  from  all  eternity  an  independent  being. 

We  reason  in  like  manner  concerning  any  particular  attri 
bute;  as,  whether  from  eternal  existence  and  power,  benevo 
lence  can  be  inferred,  without  our  knowing  any  instances  of 
benevolence  ? 


I.  iv.    1,  2.]  JIEASONING    A    POSTERIORI.  7 

I.  It  may,  perhaps,  be  doubted,  whether  this  argument  is 
strictly  of  the  sort  to  which  it  pretends.  We  seem  obliged  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  it  in  our  own  existence ;  which  seems  to 
be  an  effect;  and  we  seem  obliged  to  mount  upwards  to  sec 
10  how  our  own  existence  is  reconcileable  with  the  idea  of  there 
having  been  at  any  time  no  God.  This  remark,  though  ad 
mitted,  can  only  affect  the  form,  and  not  the  validity  of  the 
argument. 

Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  is  the  principal  supporter  of  the  argu 
ment  a  priori;  how  extensive  the  study  of  it  may  be  made, 
will  appear  best  from  a  perusal  of  his  work  and  the  contro 
versies  arising  out  of  it.  It  seems  as  if  Dr.  Clarke  might  as 
well  not  have  called  his  argument  a  demonstration ;  it  has  been 
observed1  that  a  matter  of  fact  cannot  be  demonstrated,  be 
cause  it  does  not  imply  a  contradiction  to  suppose  a  fact  to 
have  happened  otherwise  :  also,  that  an  infinite  series  of  causes 
can  have  no  prior  cause.  But  supposing  both  these  remarks 
to  have  weight,  yet  Dr.  Clarke's  argument  may  prevail,  as  to 
the  conclusion  aimed  at ;  because  the  difficulties  are  less  on  his 
side  than  the  opposite. 

Dr.  Kippis,  in  his  life  of  Lardner,  mentions  a  work  of 
Lowman,  "  drawn  up  in  the  mathematical  form,  to  prove  the 
being  and  perfections  of  God  a  priori;" — which  he  does  not 
allow  to  be  convincing,  though  he  thinks  it  as  near  demonstra 
tion  as  any  thing  of  the  kind. 


11  CHAPTER    IV. 

OF    REASONING    A    POSTERIORI. 

1.  WE  reason  a  posteriori  on  the  being  of  God,  when  we 
consider  the  things  of  heaven  and  earth ;   their  qualities  and 
uses;  and  ask  whether  they  could  have  been  formed  by  chance, 
by  a  variety  of  beings,  by  an  unwise  or  malevolent  being. 

2.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  copious  this  source  of  religious 
knowledge  is :   before  it  can  be   exhausted,   we  must  be   ac 
quainted   with  all  the  phenomena  of  nature ;  inanimate,  in 
stinctive,  rational,   moral: — the  scheme  and  system  of  them, 
the  laws  to  which  they  are   subject ;   the  relation  of  each  to 

1  Hume's  Dial,  on  Nat.  Relig.  Part  9. 


8  REASONING    A    POSTERIORI.  [I.  iv.  3,  4. 

every  other,  and  to  the  whole : — we  may  safely  pronounce  I. 
this  source  inexhaustible.  If  any  one  felt  a  desire  to  extend 
his  views,  by  examining  a  number  of  examples  of  what  is  here 
said,  he  needs  only  have  recourse  to  the  works  of  Derham,  his 
Physico-theology,  and  Astro-theology  :  or  to  any  later  and 
more  improved  accounts  of  the  works  of  the  creation. 

3.  Mr.  Hume  is  the  author  of  some  dialogues  on  natural 
religion,  published  since  his  death,  which  may  serve  to  shew 
the  copiousness  of  both  our  methods  of  reasoning.     He  intro 
duces  characters,  who  urge  many  sceptical  arguments  against 
our  argument  a  posteriori,  which  indeed  may  prevent  its  being 
misapplied  ;   but  the  result  is,  according  to  him,  that  there  is 
no  way  but  this  of  accounting  for  the  phenomena  of  nature, 
that  is   intelligible,    and  determinate. — It    seems  as  if  much 
better  answers  might  be  given  to  his  sceptical  arguments,  than 

he  himself  gives ;  to  attempt  giving  them  here  would  detain  us  12 
too  long  on  a  single  point ;  such  an  attempt  should  make  a 
separate  work :  we  will  content  ourselves  with  a  single  instance. 
Near  the  end  of  Part  in.  we  find,  "none  of  the  materials  of 
thought  are  in  any  respect  similar  in  the  human  and  in  the 
divine  intelligence ;"  hence  we  are  to  infer,  that  we  have  no 
right  to  say  God  is  wise  from  his  works,  merely  because  it 
would  require  human  wisdom  to  construct  such  works : — but 
suppose  we  take  the  reasoning  of  the  Psalmist J ;  "  he  that 
planted  the  ear,  shall  he  not  hear?"  must  we  say,  that  this 
is  not  good  reasoning,  because  God  cannot  be  said  in  an  hu 
man  sense  to  hear,  he  having  no  bodily  ears  ? — whether  we 
call  his  knowledge  of  our  sounds  hearing,  or  not,  is  insig 
nificant  ;  it  is  incredible  that  he  should  be  ignorant  of  the 
effects  of  those  organs  which  he  has  constructed.  In  like  man 
ner,  we  speak  truly  when  we  say,  God  is  wise ;  and  man  can 
have  no  other  way  of  expressing  this  truth  ;  though  it  is  right 
for  him  to  be  aware,  that  divine  wisdom  may  differ  as  much 
from  human,  as  divine  hearing  from  human  hearing.  I  say 
may  differ,  rather  than  does  differ ;  the  latter  expression  im 
plies  too  little  diffidence. 

4.  I  fear  the  argument,  in  the  essay  of  the  same  author 
on  Providence  and  a  future  State,  has  done  harm  ;   it  is  such 
an   attack  on   the  truths  which  we  are  now  considering,  that 
I  beg  leave  to  take  sonic  notice  of  it.     We  cannot,  says  Mr. 
Hume,  infer  a  perfect  God  from  an  imperfect  world  ;   we  can 


1.  IV.  5.]  REASONING    A  POSTERIORI.  9 

I.  infer  nothing  in  the  cause  which  we  do  not  see  in  the  effect. 
We  cannot  therefore  reason  from  God's  perfect  goodness,  wis 
dom.  &c.  as  if  they  had  been  fully  established. — I  would  wish 
only  to  observe,  that  it  is  good  probable  reasoning,  and  such 

13  as  we  should  use  in  any  important  worldly  affair,  to  find  out 
God,  in  our  way,  and  in  our  present  state,  a  posteriori,  and 
then  to  argue  from  his  character,  supposed  perfect,  to  what 

may  be  expected  from    a    perfect    being The  Alexandrian 

manuscript  is  a  good  one ;  how  do  we  know  that  ?  from  find 
ing  in  it  many  good  readings :  a  conjecture  occurs  about  the 
manner  of  reading  a  certain  clause;  he  who  finds  this  MS. 
favor  his  conjecture,  will  think  he  proves  it  to  be  a  right  one; 
why  ?  because  it  is  a  good  manuscript. 

If  a  man  behaves  well  in  several  instances,  I  conclude  that 
he  is  a  man  of  good  principles;  then,  if  I  want  to  judge  how 
he  would  act  in  a  doubtful  case,  I  say,  he  is  a  man  of  good 
principles,  and  therefore  he  will  behave  well.  This  is  a  kind 
of  reasoning,  on  which  a  prudent  man  would  stake  his  most 
important  interests;  and  therefore  one,  which  may  always  be 
admitted  as  a  ground  of  action. 

I  conclude  by  induction  in  settling  the  goodness  of  the 
man's  principles ;  perhaps  some  actions  of  his  appear,  which 
I  do  not  fully  understand;  but  I  must  judge  of  these  by 
such  as  I  do  understand ;  I  shall  do  this  with  the  greater 
readiness,  if  it  is  unlikely  that  I  should  understand  them  :  in 
that  case,  it  is  highly  probable,  if  I  did  understand  them,  that 
they  would  help  towards  the  same  conclusion Now  it  is  in 
finitely  unlikely,  that  we  should  understand  all  the  acts  of  the 
divine  government;  but  the  instances  of  his  benevolence  mul 
tiply  upon  us  as  we  improve  in  our  knowledge  of  things,  and 
therefore  we  ought  to  conclude,  that  he  is  benevolent  in  the 
instances  which  as  yet  we  do  not  comprehend. — Let  Mr.  Hume 
deny  this  to  be  demonstration ;  to  act  against  mere  probable 
reasoning  is  madness  :  I  cannot  demonstrate,  that  there  will  be 
another  harvest,  but  I  must  act  as  if  I  could. 

14?  5.  Before  we  close  our  short  discussions  on  natural  re 
ligion,  it  seems  proper  to  observe,  that  natural  religion  is 
presupposed  in  revealed.  This  observation  is  made,  because 
some  friends  of  revelation  seem  to  undervalue  natural  reli 
gion. — It  may  also  be  of  use,  as  a  standing  apology,  whenever 
we  introduce  topics  and  arguments  of  natural  religion  into  our 
disquisitions  on  scripture.  "  He  that  cometh  to  God,  must 


10 


REASONING    A  POKTERlORf. 


[I.  V.   1. 


believe  that  he  is;"  and  must  not  only  believe  the  existence  of   I. 
a  Deity,  but  "  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently 
seek  him."    Heb.  xi.  6 — See  also  Rom  i.  19.  &c — Acts  xiv. 
17. — Acts  xvii.  24. — Rom.  iii.  29. 

It  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted  in  scripture,  that  all  good 
Christians  have  availed  themselves  as  much  as  possible  of  all 
kinds  of  notices  from  heaven ;  not  only  with  regard  to  religion, 
but  also  with  regard  to  virtue.  See  the  character  of  Cor 
nelius;  Acts  x.  22 Rom.  ii.  14,  15 Ephes.  vi.  1. 

Nay,  it  seems  as  if  the  Christian  religion  was  of  too  im 
proved  a  nature  for  those  to  be  admitted  into  it,  whose  morals 
were  very  rude  and  uncultivated. — But  of  this  more  hereafter, 
when  we  treat  of  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  and  the  need 
men  have  of  revelation. 

Except  we  settle  previously  our  idea  of  God,  we  cannot 
prove  the  divinity  of  the  Son  or  Holy  Ghost :  that  is  shewn 
by  proving  that  each  of  those  persons  is  spoken  of  as  eternal, 
omniscient,  omnipresent,  and,  in  short,  is  possessed  of  all  di 
vine  attributes1. 


CHAPTER    V. 

OF    THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES:     AND    FIRST,    OF    THE    HEBREW 
LANGUAGE. 

1.   WE  now  pass  on  to  the  second  source  of  religious  truth; 

the  sacred  writings Common  people  are  apt  to  speak  of  the 

bible  as  of  one  book,  almost  as  if  it  had  been  published  at  one 
time,  and  written  by  one  author.  But  the  least  attention 
shews  the  great  length  of  time  between  the  first  and  the  last 
publication: — the  Pentateuch  is  said2  to  have  been  written 
1452  years  before  Christ,  the  year  before  the  death  of  Moses: 
and  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  about3  .97  years  after  Christ 
(after  his  birth)  :  in  which  time  manners,  government,  lan 
guages,  and  knowledge  had  undergone  great  changes,  and  the 
divine  dispensations  had  grown  from  almost  a  state  of  infancy, 
in  some  particulars,  to  a  state  of  maturity. 


15 


1  See  also  in  Ludlam's  Essay  on  Satis 
faction,  p.  100,  how  natural  religion  is 
used,  even  by  Hervey,  in  the  doctrine 


of  Imputation. 

-  lil air's  Chronol.  Tables. 

3  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  vi,  p. 


I.  V.  2,  .'>.]  HEBREW    LANGUAGE.  11 

I.  2.  But  it  will  be  best  to  divide  these  books  into  classes. 
There  may  be  six  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  three  of  the  New. 
The  first  class  is,  the  book  of  Genesis :  this  should  make  a 
class  by  itself,  because  it  contains  history  of  times  before  the 
dispensation  of  Moses,  and  describes  manners  so  simple  and 
unimproved,  as  to  require  separate  and  peculiar  remarks.  The 
second  class  consists  of  the  books  containing  the  Law  of  Moses, 

16  viz.  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy.     The  third 
class  consists  of  the  historical  books,  giving  an  account  of  the 
various  fortunes  which  befel  the  chosen  people  of  God,  from 
their  oppression  under  the  kings  of  /Egypt,  to  the  re-establish 
ment  of  the  Jewish  polity  and  re-building  of  the  temple  after 
the  Babylonish  captivity,  from  the  year  1706  to  the  year  515 

before  Christ There  are  some  abridgements,  as  it  were,  of 

these  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     Chap.  vii.  and  xiii. —  The 
fourth  class  consists  of  the  prophetical  books.     The  fifth  of 
the  moral.     The  sixth  of  the  poetical. 

The  first  class  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  consists 
of  the  Gospels  and  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  record  the 
conduct  and  discourses  of  our  Saviour,  and  of  those  who  were 
first  commissioned  by  him :  the  second  class  is  made  up  of 
letters  written  to  the  newly-established  churches,  and  a  few 
distinguished  individuals:  and  the  prophetic  book  called  the 
Revelation,  constitutes  the  third  class. 

It  must  be  owned,  that  these  classes  are  not  wholly  distinct 
from  one  another :  several  of  them  contain  prophecies,  and  the 
prophetical  books  contain  history,  and  so  on ;  but  this  imper 
fection  is  to  be  found  in  all  classes  that  I  recollect ;  and  will 
occasion  no  confusion  in  the  present  instance,  if  we  only  apply 
observations  on  the  prophetical  books  to  such  prophecies  as  are 
found  in  the  Psalms,  or  in  the  book  of  Numbers : — and  so  of 
the  other  classes. 

3.  In  a  large  sense  we  may  say,  the  Old  Testament  is 
written  in  Hebrew ;  as  that  word  may  comprehend  the  Phoe 
nician  or  Samaritan,  (as  far  as  concerns  the  Samaritan  Pen 
tateuch,)  and  the  Chaldee.  Of  this  language  Dr.  Powell  says4 
(from  Bishop  Chandler  and  others)  that  it  "is  neither  clear 

17  nor  copious,"  that  "it  consists  of  a  few  words,  used  in  a  great 
variety  of  senses ;  and  these  senses  often  not  connected,  but  by 
some  minute  and  scarce  discernible  resemblance."    But,  though 
he  speaks  of  the  prophecies,  which  have  many  difficulties  be- 

4  Opening  of  Dis.  9. 


12 


HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 


[I.  V.  S. 


sides  that  of  the  language,  he  adds,  tc  the  obscurity  we  com-  I. 
plain  of  is  such  as  should  excite  our  industry,  not  lead  us  to 
despair  of  success.1'1 — It  does  seem  as  if  Christians  did  not 
study  the  Hebrew  language  sufficiently :  though  the  Christian 
dispensation  is  intended  to  supersede  the  Jewish,  yet  they  are 
only  different  parts  of  the  same  plan ;  every  word  that  is  said 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  said  to  those  that  had  Jewish  ideas, 
and  the  allusions  which  we  may  call  Hebrew  allusions,  are  in 
numerable  ] :  and  it  is  not  only  the  sense  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  but  the  authenticity  of  it,  which  suffers  by  an  ignorance 
of  Hebrew.  We  cannot  judge  so  well,  whether  prophecies 
have  really  been  fulfilled,  if  we  have  not  some  understanding 
of  the  meaning  of  the  prophecies,  as  we  can  with  such  assist 
ance And  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  knit  together  by 

an  endless  number  of  ties,  the  nature  of  which  will  not  be 
thoroughly  seen  by  one,  who  is  rudis  atque  hospes  in  the 
original  languages.  Neither  must  we  confine  our  views  to  the 
past ;  there  is  an  unbounded  field  open  before  us  for  future 
improvements : — but,  if  we  do  not  search  for  oriental  know 
ledge,  we  shall  fall  far  short  of  what  might  possibly  be  effected. 

Dr.  Jubb  has  used  several  good  arguments  in  favour  of  the 
study  of  Hebrew,  in  a  Latin  speech,  which  he  has  printed, 
made  at  Oxford  in  1780. 

Dr.  William  Wotton  has  shewn,  that  the  Talmud,  or,  more 
properly,  the  Misna2,  is  useful  to  Christians,  as  containing  a 
very  old  traditional  law  of  the  Jews  reduced  to  writing;  as  18 
mentioning  many  things,  which  our  Saviour,  and  those  to 
whom  he  addressed  himself,  would  have  in  their  minds.  He 
introduces  a  letter  from  Simon  Ockley3,  Professor  of  Arabic 
in  Cambridge  in  1718,  in  which  it  is  said,  "  If  I  had  ever  had 
an  opportunity,  I  would  most  certainly  have  gone  through  the 
New  Testament  under  a  Jew, — they  understand  it  infinitely 
better  than  we  do,""  &c.  Lightfoot,  in  his  Horse  Hebraic;c 
and  Talmudica1,  lias  been  of  much  use  in  the  way  we  are 
speaking  of;  and  he  has  been  improved  upon,  I  conceive,  by 
Schoeitgenius. — It  is  indeed  surprising  to  think  how  ignorant 
of  Hebrew  some  of  the  Greek  Fathers  were4;  the  authority  of 


1  See  Prologue  to  Kcclesiasticus. 
-  \\'otton,  Discourse  i.  chap.  vii.  vol.  i. 
p.  HO— 101. 
3  Wotton's  Preface  to  Misna. — end. 


4  Some  instances,  relating  to  Justin 
Martyr,  &c.  may  be  found  in  Pearson  on 
the  Creed,  Article  2d,  not  far  from  the 
beginning,  about  Joshua,  Abraham,  and 
Sarah. 


I.  v.  4.J 


HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 


13 


I.  the  Septuagint  must  have  occasioned  it.  Had  the  earliest  Fa 
thers  studied  Hebrew,  as  Jerome  did  afterwards,  we  might  have 
known  much  more  of  the  application  of  that  language  to  the 
New  Testament,  than  we  do  at  present 5. 

4.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  to  be  considered  as  an 
original6 ;  differing  from  the  Hebrew  only  in  characters ;  or  in 
readings,  as  far  as  one  MS.  may  differ  from  another.  Samaria 
was  a  city,  (though  a  region  round  it  has  the  same  name)  once 
only  the  capital  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  but  afterwards  made 
the  capital  of  the  ten  tribes  which  separated  from  Judah  and 
Benjamin :  all  twelve  were  carried  captive  into  the  East,  into 
19  Assyria  and  the  neighbourhood  of  Babylon;  the  ten  above 
100  years7  before  the  two;  the  ten  having  jointly  taken  the 
name  of  Israel,  as  the  main  body  of  the  twelve  tribes;  the 
two,  of  Judah. — During  the  captivity,  a  colony  was  sent  to 
inhabit  the  depopulated  provinces  near  Samaria;  this  colony 
were  Cut/leans,  and  they  were  idolaters;  a  long  time  after 
wards,  an  Israelitish  priest  was  sent  with  the  Samaritan  Pen 
tateuch  (not  other  parts  of  Scripture)  to  re-establish  the 
Mosaic  religion  :  this  made  a  mixture  of  Judaism  and  idol 
atry  8 ;  especially  as  this  colony  adopted  the  religion  of  Moses, 
in  some  degree,  as  the  religion  of  the  place:  then,  an  Israel 
itish  priest  married  a  daughter  of  a  Pagan  governor  of  Samaria 
(Sandballat);  this  governor  built  a  temple  on  mount  Gerizim*, 
to  rival  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  about  204  years  after  the  re 
turn  of  the  Jews ;  this  rivalship  produced  a  national  hatred 
between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans. 

Phoenicia  was  one  name  of  Canaan  proper ;  the  Phoenician 
language  was  therefore  properly  the  language  of  the  Hebrews 
before  the  captivity :  and  it  is  the  same,  which  was  afterwards 
called  the  Samaritan.  Our  present  Hebrew  is  written  in  the 
Chaldee  character,  which  the  Hebrews  got  accustomed  to, 
during  a  seventy  years  captivity  in  the  country  near  Babylon, 
called  sometimes  Chaldea10. 


5  See  Masclef,  vol.  u.  Defence,  p.  v. 
where  it  is  said,  that  even  PhUo  and  Jo- 
sephus,  were  infantes  in  Hebrew;  from 
Capellus. 

c  See  Kennicott's  State  of  the  Hebrew 
Text,  vol.  i.  8vo.  p.  33J. ;  and  Du  Pin's 
('anon  of  the  Old  Testament  5.  1.  quoted 
by  Kennicott,  p.  33f}. 

7  ('ollyev's  Sacred  Interpreter.  T.  2(iH. 


8  Well  might  Christ  say  (John  iv.  22.) 
"  Ye  worship  ye  know  not  what." 

A  good  account  of  this  matter  seems 
to  be  in  Beenuo&re't  Introduction  to  the 

New  Testament. 

!)  For  Gerizim,  see  Deut.  xi.  29.  and 
xxvii.  12. — See  also  Collyer,  vol.  I.  p. 
342,  from  Usher. 

10  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  41,"»,  quotes 
Cellar.  Orb.  Ant.  t.  n.  p.  7">'"»- 


HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 


[I.  v.  5. 


To  any  one,  who  wishes  to  get  a  good  idea  of  the  Sama-  I. 
ritans,  I  would  recommend  a  Dissertation  of  Dr.  Kennicott : 
the  word  Gerixim  is  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  Deut.  xxvii. 
4.  where  the  Hebrew  has  Ebal ;  Gerizim  is  by  many  supposed  20 
to  be  inserted  by  a  pious  fraud ;  but  Dr.  Kennicott  has  written 
to  prove  Gerizim  the  right  reading  *.  Some  have  thought 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  now  subsisting,  to  be  only  a  tran 
script  from  our  Hebrew ;  but  I  should  think  they  differ  too 
much  for  that ;  how  much  they  differ  may  be  seen  in  Dr.  Ken- 
nicott's  Bible  :  he  puts  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  Hebrew 
characters,  where  it  differs  from  the  Hebrew,  so  that  the  Sa 
maritan  copy  may  easily  be  compared  with  the  Hebrew :  he 
says,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  should  be  "  held  very  pre 
cious.'1 — "  Some  places  in  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  will  never 
be  intelligible,  nor  others  defensible,  till  corrected  agreeably  to 
the  Samaritan2." — See  also  Kennicott's  State  of  the  Hebrew 
Text,  2  vols.  Svo. — Index:  particularly  vol.  i.  p.  336,  &c.  where 
he  quotes  a  good  passage  from  Du  Pin's  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  1.  5.  1. — I  conclude  this  account  with  mentioning, 
that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  quoted  by  the  Fathers,  (in 
the  4th  and  5th  centuries,  I  think,)  but  then  disappeared ;  and 
no  MSS.  of  it  were  found  till  the  l?th,  when  they  seem  to 
have  been  purchased  in  the  East.  See  Kennicott's  State,  &c. 
vol.  I.  p.  339.  347 vol.  IT.  p.  302,  &c. 

5.  Chaldee  may  be  considered  as  a  dialect  of  the  Hebrew ; 
in  the3  same  characters  with  what  we  now  call  Hebrew,  or 
very4  nearly  the  same.  —  It  is  reckoned  the  original  of  the 
books  of  Daniel  and  Ezra ;  and  of  part  of  Jeremiah  ;  though 
Dr.  Kennicott5  speaks  of  a  MS.  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  discovered 
at  Rome  in  1?6'4  in  Hebrew,  which  seemed  pure,  and  was  pro-  21 
bably  ancient. — Chaldee  is  of  great  use  for  enabling  us  to  read 
the  Chaldee  Paraphrases,  which  shew  the  sense  put  by  the 
Jews  on  the  words  of  scripture ;  and  shew  particularly  on  what 
passages  they  grounded  their  expectation  of  the  Messiah. 

Besides   this   Chaldee,    there   was   the   Syriac,   or   vulgar 
tongue  of  the  Jews,  which  possibly  might  be 6  a  kind  of  coun- 


1  State  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  vol.  u. 
p.  20—1(1-2. 

-  I)r  Kennicott's  Ten  Annual  Accounts, 
p.  U.i. 

:1  Masclef,  vol.  n.  p.  1st  after  Preface. 

4  Walton's  Prolegomena.  —  But  see 
I'arkhurst's  Greek  Lexicon,  ' 


5  Ten  Annual  Accounts,  p.  7-4.  See 
also  Masclef 's  Grammar,  vol.  11.  Argu- 
menta,  p.  iii. 

c  Brerewood,  chap.  9.  might  be  read. 
See  also  Parkhurst's  Greek  Lexicon,  un 
der  ' 


I.  V.   6\]  HEBREW    LANGUAGE.  15 

I.  try  dialect. — In  the  capital,  Jerusalem,  it  seems  as  if  one  might 
say,  that  Chaldee  was  spoken,  when  Syriac  was  spoken  in  Ga 
lilee;  I  suppose,  in  a  large  town  the  vulgar  tongue  might 
approach  nearer  to  the  written  tongue,  or  proper  language, 
than  in  the  country  ;  some  have  called  the  language  spoken 
at  Jerusalem  in  our  Saviour's  time,  Syro-Chaldaic' '.  The 
shades  of  dialects  are  endless:  and,  in  some  places,  many 
speak  more  languages  than  one ;  as  the  Welsh  and  Irish,  the 
Scotch  and  Flemish.  The  Syriac  is  recommended,  because 
our  Saviour  spoke  it;  and  his  Evangelists  wrote  down  what 
he  spoke;  they  might  write  in  Greek,  but  their8  ideas  were 
Syriac ;  and  therefore  they  of  course  used  many  Syriac  idioms, 
and  some  words  °.  The  Syriac  characters  in  time  became  dif 
ferent  from  the  Chaldee,  or  what  we  now  call  Hebrew;  but 
how  and  when,  does  not  appear 10.  The  chief  thing  is  to  con 
ceive  the  Chaldee,  brought  from  the  East,  as  a  language  of 
the  better  sort,  and  therefore  usually  written ;  the  Syriac, 
belonging  to  the  province  which  the  Jews  left,  and  to  which 
they  returned,  as  a  language  of  the  more  ordinary  people,  and 
therefore  usually  spoken ;  and  the  Greek,  spreading  as  an  uni- 

22  versal  language,  and  the  language  of  the  LXX  :  and  these  as 
ingredients  mixed  in  different  proporti07is  in  different  places,  and 
with  different  persons,  in  ways  not  now  to  be  specified  exactly. 
6.  After  mentioning  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament, 
we  should  mention  the  manner  of  learning  it.  Michaelis  af 
firms11,  that  there  is  not  one  tolerable  lexicon  in  the  Hebrew 
language;  and  perhaps  there  may  not  be  one  equal  to  the 
Greek  Thesaurus  of  Henry  Stephens,  or  the  French  dictionary 
of  the  Academy ;  but  the  reason  may  be,  because  it  is  impos 
sible  to  make  such  an  one.  Were  there  as  many  Hebrew  as 
Greek  books,  (and  the  same  of  words)  and  were  it  equally 
practicable  to  ascertain  or  decipher  Hebrew  and  Greek  ex 
pressions,  I  doubt  not  but  there  would  be  as  good  an  Hebrew 
lexicon  as  the  Greek  one  now  mentioned :  but  this  is  not  the 
case.  If  we  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  matter,  each  language  is 
to  be  learnt  by  examining  all  the  passages  in  which  any  word 
occurs  12.  But  any  one,  who  does  this,  will  see  what  has  been 


7  Masclef,  vol.  n.  Arg.  p.  iii.  Mack- 
night's  Index. 

u  Masclef 's  Grammar,  vol.  n.  p.  114. 

9  Wotton's  Misna,  Preface,  p.  xviii- 

10  Masclef,  Ibid.  p.  121. 


11  Introd.  Lect.  Pref.  p.  xii.  &c.  quarto. 

12  A  Chaldee  Grammar  is  a  set  of  ge 
neral  observations  formed  by  reading  the 
parts  of  Scripture,  which  are  in  Chaldee, 
(as  also  the  Chaldee  Paraphrases,  &c.) 

and 


16  HEBREW    LANGUAGE.  [I.  V.   C. 

clone  in  the  same  way  by  those  who  have  gone  before  him.  I. 
Lexicons  and  grammars  consist  of  general  observations  de 
duced  from  a  number  of  particular  instances :  the  chief  thing 
is,  to  hit  off  well  the  connexion  of  different  senses  of  the  same 
word,  and  their  dependence  on  each  other.  The  Hebrew  words, 
which  we  have,  are  within  any  one's  reach,  and  the  chief  dif 
ference  between  lexicographers  seems  to  consist  in  arranging 
them.  Mr.  Parkhurst  endeavours  always,  in  his  lexicon  of 
Hebrew  and  English,  to  get  a  sense  to  the  root,  which  has 
something  in  common  with  all  the  senses ;  so  that  the  meaning  23 
shall  rise,  like  the  sap  in  vegetables,  immediately  into  the  prin 
cipal  branches,  and  from  them  into  the  smaller  ones.  Buxtorf 
has  published  a  small  lexicon,  which  is  well  adapted  to  com 
mon  use;  and  has  the  points:  Cardinal  Passionei  has  published 
a  large  one  with  points,  in  two  vols.  folio,  which  saves  the  in 
vestigation  of  the  root :  and  John  Taylor's  Hebrew  concord 
ance  should  be  mentioned ;  but  there  is  such  a  connexion 
between  the  different  Oriental  tongues,  that  I  should  recom 
mend  some  of  those  lexicons  that  contain  more  than  mere 
Hebrew ;  as  Schindler's  Pentaglotton,  or  Castellus's  (Castle's) 
Heptaglotton.  How  melancholy  !  that  so  worthy  and  learned 
a  man  as  Castle  should  injure  his  sight,  and  ruin  his  fortune, 
by  such  a  work  ! 

There  is  a  lexicon  made  by  John  Buxtorf,  jun.  for  the 
purpose  of  explaining  the  Chaldee  Paraphrases  and  the  Syriac 
Version  of  the  New  Testament ;  Basil,  lo'22  ;  a  well-printed 
book ;  but  it  has  often  failed  me,  when  I  thought  I  had  reason 
to  expect  information  from  it. 

As  to  grammars,  I  know  none  more  to  be  recommended 
than  Masclef 's  ',  as  it  gives  rules  for  the  Chaldee,  Syriac,  and 
Samaritan,  as  well  as  for  what  is  commonly  called  Hebrew. 
He  is  entirely  for  banishing  points,  which  suits  my  judgment, 
as  far  as  I  can  form  one ;  for  they  seem  to  embarrass  more 
than  they  elucidate ;  and  they  seem  to  want  authority.  Park- 
hurst's  grammar  is  without  points,  and  very  commodious  :  as 
is  also  Wilson* 8,  which  I  think  I  should  recommend  upon  the 
whole  to  the  English  reader,  for  mere  Hebrew;  especially  as 
Masclef 'a  is  scarce. 

What  has  been  already  said  may  give  us  some  idea  of  the    2 1 

and  seeing  what  expressions  and  modes  |  '  Masclef  was  a  native  of  Amiens,  and 
of  orthography,  &c.  occur  repeatedly. —  j  canon  of  the  cathedral  there;  died  17-«tj 
This  easily  applies  to  a  Lexicon.  ;  ;et.  Mi. 


I.  V.  7,  8.]  HEBREW    LANGUAGE.  17 

history  of  the  Hebrew,  which  is  more  properly  the  history  of 
the  oriental  tongues.  The  Samaritan,  or  Phoenician,  is  said  to 
be  the  same  with  the  old  Punic,  of  which  we  have  some  speci 
mens2  in  Plautus,  and  some  of  the  Christian  Fathers :  the  Phoe 
nicians  were  famous  for  trading  voyages,  and  might  make  some 
community  of  language  with  the  Carthaginians,  who,  in  their 
turn,  visited  Tyre.  Farther  to  the  east  was  the  Chaldee ;  the 
Jews  adopted  that,  and  mixed  it  with  what  they  had  before ; 
possibly  such  mixture  might  degenerate  into  the  Syriac.  To 
the  south  of  Palestine  are  the  Arabic,  the  JSthiopic,  and  the 
Coptic,  or  language  of  the  ancient  ^Egyptians,  called  the 
Cophti.  The  inscriptions  at  Palmyra  are  not  yet,  I  believe, 
understood.  John  David  Michaelis  in  1750  began3  an  history 
of  these  languages,  and  an  attempt  to  trace  out  their  connexion 
and  their  variations ;  such  a  work  might  throw  light  on  the 
Old  Testament,  and  be  the  ground  of  a  better  lexicon  than  has 
yet  been  published. 

The  history  of  the  English  language  would  include  ac 
counts  of  the  British,  Saxon,  Norman,  &c. 

7*  Rabbinical  Hebrew  is  much  nearer  to  Chaldee  than  to 
pure  Hebrew,  but  somewhat  different  from  Chaldee :  besides 
that  it  has  words  borrowed  from  the  nations  where  Jews  have 
resided ;  new  customs  and  ideas  require  new  words ;  and  it  is 
more  obvious  to  make  some  use  of  the  words  one  hears,  than 
to  invent  perfectly  new  ones4.  Schindler  gives  Rabbinical 
words,  and  so  does  Buxtorf; — and  Buxtorf  has  written  a 
Rabbinical  dictionary  in  folio,  and  a  grammar  which  shews 
the  Rabbinical  character,  a  sort  of  written  hand,  differing  in 
different  parts  of  Europe,  and  a  Bibliotheca  (in  his  abbrevi 
ations)  ;  RelamTs  Analecta5  contains  an  Isagoge;  Bartolocci6 
has  published  a  large  Bibliotheca;  and  Pococke  is  celebrated 
in  this,  as  well  as  other  parts  of  oriental  learning. 

8.  The  fewness  of  Hebrew  books  is  to  be  lamented ;  for 
there  is  no  making  good  dictionaries  and  grammars  without 
a  great  number  of  instances.  Fewer  books  have  been  written 
and  more  destroyed  in  Hebrew,  than  in  any  other  language. 

2  Plautus,  Famulus,  Act  v.  Scene  1.      berias ;  andTalmudismentionedB.lv. 


"  Hanno  loquitur  Punice." 

3  See  Pref.  to  his  Lectures  on  the  New 
Testament,  near  the  end.     Quarto. 

4  The  Talmud  belongs  to  this;   and 
the  Massora.  for  Talmud,  see  Wotton's 
JMisna;  for  Massora,  see  Buxtorf 's  Ti- 

VOL.  I. 


Art.  0.  of  these  Lectures. 

s  Relarid,  a  Dutchman,  professor  at 
Utrecht,  died  IJIH  aet.  43. 

0  Bartolocci  died  1687,  a  monk  ;  pro 
fessed  Hebrew  at  Home. 


18 


HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 


[I.  V.  8. 


Masclef  affirms,  that  no  Hebrew  book  appears  to  have  been  I. 
written  for  600  years  together ;  from  the  first  book  of  Macca 
bees  to  the  Misna ;  the  reading  of  which  in  the  synagogues  is 
forbidden  by  Justinian  in  548 ;  and  that  prohibition  is  the  first 
authentic  record  of  its  existence.  He  also  affirms,  as  was 
lately  mentioned,  that  Philo  and  Josephus  could  not  write 
Hebrew  tolerably  l.  I  suppose,  he  reckons  the  Chaldee  Pa 
raphrases  not  Hebrew2:  after  the  Misna  was  published,  it  is 
agreed,  that  many  commentators  upon  it  started  up :  and,  since 
that  time,  many  rabbis  have  written,  as  appears  by  the  Bi- 
bliothecse:  but  there  has  been  an  unfortunate  rivalship  between 
Jews  and  Christians ;  which  caused  Gregory 3  the  9th  to  burn 
twenty  cart-loads  of  Hebrew  books;  Innocent  the  4th  is  said  to  26 
have  joined  in  the  destruction  of  this  kind  of  learning:  it  seems 
as  if  they  did  harm  to  Christianity,  though  not  so  much  as  if 
the  books  had  been  written  sooner.  We  have  more  reason  to 
lament  the  books,  which4  probably  were  written  soon  after  the 
return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  were  destroyed  by 
Antiochus  Epiphanes 5,  or  in  the  time  of  Titus,  or  in  the  per 
secution  of  Adrian. 

What  has  been  said,  in  this  chapter,  must  not  be  thought 
to  pretend  to  remove  all  doubts  and  disputes :  it  is  only  meant 
to  put  the  student  on  a  footing  with  the  generality  of  divines, 
and  to  point  out  subjects  of  farther  inquiry,  with  regard  to  the 
original  language  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  might,  at  every 
point  of  our  journey,  turn  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left,  if 
we  pleased,  and  expatiate  as  far  as  we  pleased ;  but  we  must 
remember  the  length  of  the  journey  which  we  have  to  per 
form. 


1  See  Masclef 's  Nova  Grammaticae 
Argumenta.  Vol.  u.  p.  v.  &c. 

3  Masclef,  ib.  "  Hebraice ;  quod  de 
Syro-chalda'ico  idiomate  non  potest  in- 
telligi." — "Hebrea  potuit  a  Chaldaicis 
aut  Syriacis  distinguere,"  viz.  Hierony- 
mus.  p.  iii.  iv. — See  note  at  the  end  of 
this  chapter. 

3  Chambers's  Diet.     Gregory  the  9th 
died  in  1241.     Innocent  the  4th  died  in 
1254. 

4  Prologues  to  Ecclesiasticus. 

5  Bishop  Chandler's    Introd.    p.  xiv. 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,   Collyer,    vol.  I. 
p.  97.     He  died  Ki4  years  before  Christ. 


In  determining  the  sense  of  the  word 
Hebrew,  it  may  always  be  well  to  ob 
serve  to  what  it  is  opposed :  expressly  or 
tacitly :  when  opposed  to  Greek,  Latin, 
&c.  it  is  a  generic  term,  including  Chal 
dee,  &c.; — when  opposed  to  Chaldee, 
&c.  it  has  a  more  confined  meaning.  So 
the  word  Man  sometimes  means  all  hu 
man  kind;  and  yet  is  sometimes  the 
term  to  distinguish  one  part  of  human 
kind  from  another.  At  one  time  it  in 
cludes  what  at  another  it  excludes. 

Lewis's  Hebrew  Antiquities  might  be 
mentioned  to  the  Student  either  here,  or 
in  chapter  x. 


I.  vi.  1.]  GREEK    LANGUAGE.  19 


I-  CHAPTER    VI. 

27 

OF    THE    GREEK    LANGUAGE. 

1.  GREEK  is  always  popularly  called  the  original  language 
of  the  New  Testament;  (and  therefore  we  mention  the  New 
Testament  before  the  Septuagint,  which  is  only  a  translation ;) 
but  this  has  been  thought,  especially  by  many  ancient  Chris 
tians,  not  to  be  strictly  and  universally  true.  We  must  think, 
therefore,  why  we  esteem  it  such.  It  is  something,  that  we 
have  the  Greek  as  the  original ;  to  us  at  least  it  is  so,  and 
must  be  treated  accordingly ;  we  can  approach  no  nearer. 
But  moreover,  we  find  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  quoted 
in  Greek,  and  very  early ;  and,  if  we  consider  circumstances, 
it  is  likely,  that  the  evangelists  and  apostles  should  choose 
Greek  in  preference  to  Hebrew;  or  at  least  to  write  Greek 
originals,  whether  they  wrote  Hebrew  ones  or  not.  Greek 
was  understood  by  most  people,  even  in  Judea,  and  the  Gos 
pel  was  to  be  preached6  to  "  all  nations;"  Greek  was  the  most 
general  language ;  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  not  written  in 
the  Roman  language,  though  written  within  their  empire,  and 
to  inhabitants  of  their  capital.  If  Philo  and  Josephus7  had 
reasons  for  choosing  to  write  in  Greek,  if  Hebrew  was  trans 
lated  into  Greek  for  the  use  of  Jews,  why  might  not  the  first 
publishers  of  the  Gospel  use  the  Greek  language  ?  there  is  no 
general  presumption  against  it. 

But  it  has  been  always  allowed,  that  all  the  New  Testa 
ment  was  originally  in  Greek,  except  St.  Matthew's  Gospel, 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews;  therefore  arguments  may  be 

used  peculiar  to  them And,  if  so  many  books  were  in  Greek, 

why  not  all  ? — perhaps  it  may  be  said,  because  some  should  be 
in  Hebrew  for  the  use  of  the  lower  people :  yet  the  evangelists 
were  of  the  common  people,  and  they  understood  Greek  (three 
at  least)  well  enough  to  write  it :  below  their  rank,  perhaps, 
pure  Hebrew  would  not  have  been  much  better  understood  in 
our  Saviour's  time  by  any,  who  could  be  deemed  readers  of  the 


"  The  extent  of  the  Greek  language  is 
shewn  in  Brerewood,  chap.  1. 

7  Josephus  first  wrote  his  Jewish  War 
in  the  language  of  his  own  country,  and 


afterwards  published  it  in  Greek ; — Lard. 
Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  35,  from  Josephus's 
Prol.  sect.  2. 


2 — 2 


20 


GREEK  LANGUAGE. 


[I.  vi.  2, 


books  in  question. — Syriac  would  have1  been  necessary;  and    I. 

a  Syriac  version  there  was  very  early If  there  ever  was  an 

Hebrew  original,  it  was  probably  rather  for  those  who  were 
attached  to  Hebrew  (against  innovations  and  foreign  fashions) 
than  for  the  lowest  ranks  of  people ;  and  how  came  it  so  much 
neglected  ?  who  translated  it  into  Greek  ?  i.  e.  made  what  the 
church  has  generally  taken  as  an  original  ?  Both  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  have  much  the  appear 
ance  and  ease,  and  the  harmony,  numbers,  and  rhetorical 
figures  of  originals2.  It  seems  to  have  been  prejudice,  which 
made  men  first  fancy  it  was  likely  these  two  books  should  be 
first  written  in  Hebrew ;  and  thence  conclude,  that  they  were 
so.  Whoever  wishes  to  see  these  and  other  arguments  well 
stated,  may  consult  the  Supplement  to  Lardner's  Credibility 
of  the  Gospel  History. 

The  utmost,  which  it  seems  possible  to  allow  to  the  fa 
vourers  of  the  opinion,  that  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  was  first 
written  in  Hebrew,  is,  that  there  might  possibly  be  two  ori 
ginals,  one  in  Greek,  another  in  some  kind  of  Hebrew :  as  we  29 
have  two  originals  of  our3  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  of  Sir 
Isaac  Newton's  Optics.  Indeed,  this  supposition  accounts  for 
some  expressions  of  the  ancients  very  well.  What  right  the 
favourers  of  such  opinion  have  to  our  attention,  will  appear 
from  what  follows. 

2.  In  early  times  of  Christianity,  there  was  such  a  book 
as  the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  sometimes  called  The  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews ;  sometimes,  The  Gospel  according 
to  the  twelve1: — indeed,  there  were  a  great  number  of  gospels 
of  different  sorts,  but  this  is  particularly  mentioned  here,  be 
cause  it  was  afterwards  imagined  by  some,  to  have  been  the 
original  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew. — What  it  really  was,  cannot 
perhaps  be  ascertained  beyond  all  power  of  doubting  :  there 
fore  we  must  not  dwell  on  the  subject :  what  seems  most  pro 
bable  is  this;  it  was  an  history  of  the  acts  and  sayings  of 
Christ,  in  some  kind  of  Hebrew,  taken  chiefly  from  St.  Mat- 


1  With  regard  to  this,  consider,  as  be- 
fore,  what  Parkhurst  says  under  'E/9/oofs  : 
and  the  remarks  ottered  in  the  preceding 
chapter. 

2  See  Beausobre's  Pref.  to  Hebr.  quot 
ed  by  Lardner,  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  'J»i!'. : 
where  are  other  good  authorities.     iSee 
also  Limborch  on  Acts  vi.  1. 


:I  The  Countess  of  Rosenberg  has  writ 
ten  in  French  and  English,  and  says, 
that  they  are  equally  original.  Josephus 
was  mentioned  in  this  section. 

•'  Lard.  Credib.  Index,  Gospel.  Frag 
ments  are  preserved  by  Grabe.  See  also 
Jeremiah  Jones. 


I.  vi.  3.]  GREEK    LANGUAGE.  21 

I.  thew,  but  with  things  added  from  some  of  the  other  Evan 
gelists,  and  with  still  more  particulars  than  they  mention, 
known  by  tradition  probably,  for  the  use  of  the  lowest  orders 
of  the  people 5. 

3.  The  Septuagint*  is  a  copious  subject.  We  must  en 
deavour  to  select  what  will  give  us  the  best  idea  of  it,  without 
entering  into  minutiae. 

Alexander  the  Great  died  324  years  before  Christ :  four  of 
his  generals  shared  his  dominions7;  Ptolemy,  surnamed  Soter 
(Saviour)  had  JEgypt :  ere  long,  he  tried  to  extend  his  domi- 
30  nions ;  he  attacked  him  who  had  got  Syria,  but  found  oppo 
sition  from  the  fidelity  and  loyalty  of  the  Jews;  one  sabbath- 
day,  he  contrived  to  get  the  better  of  them,  and  transported 
several  colonies  of  them  into  ^Egypt,  into  the  neighbourhood 
of  Alexandria  chiefly,  to  the  amount,  it  is  said,  of  an  hundred 
thousand  men.  His  son,  Ptolemy,  surnamed  Philadelphus, 
succeeded  him,  283  years  before  Christ;  he  was  a  lover  of 
literature,  and  formed,  and  dedicated  with  great  magnificence, 
under  Demetrius  Phalereus,  as  his  librarian,  the  famous  library 
of  Alexandria,  consisting  of  two  hundred  thousand  volumes. 
About  this  time,  (about  280  years  before  Christ),  or  perhaps8 
rather  later,  the  Hebrew  Bible  was,  in  fact,  translated  into 
Greek.  The  translation  has  the  name  of  the  Septuagint,  or 
the  version  of  the  Seventy,  from  a  notion,  that  Ptolemy  pro 
cured  six  of  each  Jewish  tribe  to  make  it ;  twelve  times  six 
amounts  to  seventy-two,  and  sometimes  this  is  called  the  ver 
sion  of  the  Seventy-two,  but  more  commonly  the  number  two 
is  neglected :  some  wonderful  stories  are  told  of  these  trans 
lators  being  shut  up  in  separate  cells,  and  bringing  out  the 
very  same  translation  to  an  iota,  in  two  days  ;  or  in  seventy- 
two  ;  but  no  learned  man  supports  these  stories  now,  I  think, 
if  we  may  except  Isaac  Vossius9.  Mill  thinks,  that  the  ap 
probation  of  a  council  of  Jews,  consisting  of  about  seventy, 
gave  the  Septuagint  its  name.  (beg.  of  pref.)  Prideaux10  thinks 
the  translation  was  made  at  the  request  of  the  Alexandrian 
Jews;  possibly  their  request,  and  Ptolemy's  turn  for  litera 
ture,  and  desire  to  suit  the  Jews,  might  jointly  occasion  it11. 
5  This  is  Lardner's  opinion;  Works,  I  9  See  Pref.  to  Mill's  LXX,  12ni°,  3d 


vol.  vi.  p.  64. 

6  Encyclopedic,  Septanle. 

7  Collyer's  Sacred  Interpreter,  Index, 
Septuagint. 

8  Ladvocat  under  Ptol.  Philad.  says  271 . 


page. 

10  Connexion  2.  1.  quoted  p.  347.  Col 
ly  er,  vol.  T. 

11  For  the  contents  of  Aristaeus's  ac 
count  of  this  translation  of  the  Bible,  as 

well 


22  CREEK  LANGUAGE.  [I.  vi.  3. 

On  the  authority  of  this  translation,  men  have  been  di-  I. 
vided ;  the  Jews  of  late  have  reckoned  it  despicable;  though  31 
Josephus  seems  to  venerate  it :  Isaac  Vossins 1  has  reckoned 
it  divine ;  these  are  the  extremes :  some  middle  opinion  would 
come  nearest  the  truth.  Dr.  Kennicott,  in  his  State  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  has  several  good  remarks  upon  it  scattered 
about,  and  he  has  quoted  several  good  opinions  of  others : — 
he  mentions  one  instance,  where  this  version  is  right,  and  both 
the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan2  wrong;  it  differ,s  from  our  He 
brew  in  a  very  great  number 3  of  passages ;  and  probably  was 
translated  from  copies,  which  differed  much  from  ours :  it  has 
now  itself  many  various4  readings,  in  the  different  copies  of 
it;  but,  supposing  the  right  readings  of  it  ascertained,  I 
should  think  that  it  ought  to  be  allowed  to  correct  our  He 
brew,  as  well  as  our  Hebrew  to  correct5  it:  the  genuine 
reading  ought  to  be  investigated  by  comparing  them.  Jerom6 
seems  perplexed  with  it,  but  it  stood  in  his  way,  when  he 
wanted  to  make  a  translation  from  certain  Hebrew  MSS.  into 
Latin.  There  seems  not  to  have  been  any  unity,  either  of 
person  or  plan,  in  making  this  version,  if  we  may  judge  from  32 
different  ways  of  spelling  the  same  name7,  and  from  different 
ways  of  rendering  the  very  same  phrase,  in  passages  very  near 
to  each  other. 

The  importance  of  this  version  is  reckoned  great  by  most 
moderate  men;  it  was  made  before  the  Jews  were  prejudiced8 
against  Jesus  as  the  Messiah ;  it  was  the  means  of  preparing 9 
the  world  at  large  for  his  appearance.  There  is  a  preface 
signed  I.  P.  (the  initials  of  Bishop  Pearson's  10  name)  to  a 


well  as  of  the  account  of  Justin  Martyr, 
&c.  see  the  Preliminaria  to  Montfaucon's 
edit,  of  Origen's  Hexapla,  Cap.  3.  Aris- 
tanis  (Montfaucon  calls  him  Aristeas, 
Josephus  'ApuTTalos,)  was  the  name  of 
an  officer  in  the  court  of  Ptolerny  Phila- 
delphus ;  so  some  one  probably  forged  an 
history  under  his  name.  Saying  this,  is 
not  affirming,  that  there  are  no  true  facts 
in  the  history  under  the  name  of  Aris- 
t<eus. — See  Pref.  to  31  ill's  Septuagint. 
Josephus  (Ant.  12.  2.)  has  a  long  chapter 
on  this  subject,  telling  many  particulars ; 
but  they  have  not  a  credible  appearance  : 
some  speak  of  Aristaeus's  work  as  genuine. 
It  is  inserted  in  the  Bibliotheca?  Patrum. 


3  i.  p.  549.  3  p.  284. 

4  P.  211.    1788,  Mr.   Holmes  is  now 
about  collating  the  MSS. 

5  See  Sir  I.  Newton's  Chronology,  p. 
343;  quoted  Kennicott's  State,  &c.  vol. 
ii.  p.  337. 


10 


Wotton's  Misna,  Pref.  p.  ix.  &c. 


<;  Kennicott's  State,  vol.  i.  p.  211. 

7  Ken.  197,  vol.  i.     8  Ken.  2/6.  vol.  i. 

"  Col  Iyer  i.  347. 

Bishop  Pearson  was  the  person  meant. 
See  Biographia  Britannica,  under  Pear 
son.  On  the  Creed,  p.  491.  1st  edit,  (on 
Descent  into  Hell)  Bishop  Pearson  says, 
"many  additional  patches  have  been  in 
that  translation,"  meaning  the  LXX. 
This  sentence  is  not  in  some  later  edi- 
dons  of  Pearson. 


I.  vi.  4.] 


GREEK    LANGUAGE. 


I.  Cambridge  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  printed  in  1665,  which 
gives  an  account  of  many  other  advantages,  (I  will  read  you 
the  last  paragraph)  ;  and  Dr.  Hody's  judgment  seems  can 
did  n Michaelis  reckons  the  best  edition  of  the  LXX.  to  be 

Breitinger's :  references  are  made,  by  Dr.  Kennicott,  to  the 
Complutensian,  and  that  of  Aldus ;  and  to  the  Vatican  and 
Alexandrian  manuscripts.  The  Cambridge  edition  of  1665  is 
printed  after  the  Vatican  MS. 

4.  It  may  seem  extraordinary,  that  our  Saviour  and  the 
sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testament  should  quote  the  trans 
lation  of  the  LXX.  rather  than  the  Hebrew ;  for  so  they  are 
said  to  have  done.  "  Almost  all  the  passages  of  the  Old  Test 
ament,"  introduced  into  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  they 
are  very  numerous,  are  "  quoted  according  to  the  Seventy  12, 
33  not  according  to  the  Hebrew" — It  is  however  said,  that  rather 
the  sense  of  the  Septuagint  is  followed  than  the  words 13, 
though  our  Testament  is  in  the  same  language.  Supposing 
the  truth  of  this,  two  ideas  may  be  here  mentioned :  1.  The 
Hebrew  copies  in  use,  at  the  first  publication  of  Christianity, 
might  be  more  like  those,  from  which  the  LXX.  had  trans 
lated,  than  our  present  copies  are.  And  this  idea  will  appear 
less  strange,  if  we  attend  to  "  almost  all,"  in  the  passage  now 
quoted ;  and  to  the  words  of  a  Greek  translation  not  being 
followed  in  a  Greek  book.  2.  The  Greek  language  might  be 
so  much  the  general  language,  and  the  version  of  the  LXX. 
might  be  so  much  known,  that  it  might  be  more  likely  to  an 
swer  the  purpose  of  quotation  to  quote  from  the  LXX,  than 
to  quote  from  the  Hebrew :  the  arguments,  built  upon  quota 
tions,  would  not  be  weakened  by  such  choice.  The  knowledge 
of  Greek  did  descend  to  low  ranks;  to  men  of  ordinary  me 
chanic  trades;  such  were  the  apostles; — how  far  quotations 
from  pure  Hebrew,  differing  much  from  the  Greek,  would 
have  been  entered  into,  I  do  not  clearly  see ;  but  they  would 
not  have  been  so  extensively  useful  as  those  from  the  Greek. 

But  it  may  be  proper  to  mention,  that  Dr.  Randolph  and 
Mr.  Street14  think  it  cannot  be  generally  affirmed,  that  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  did  quote  from  the  LXX. 

My  own  idea  is,  that  we  do  not  enter  quite  enough  into 
the  circumstances  of  this  case.  Christ  and  his  Apostles  would 


11  Quoted  in  Kennicott,  vol.  i.  p.  f)4-~>. 

12  Beausobre's  Pref.  to  Hebr.  transl.  by 
Lardner,  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  269. 


1S  Colly er,  i.  p.  347- 
14  See  Preface  to  Mr  Street's  Transla- 
tion  of  the  Psalms,  p.  xv— xviii. 


24)  GREEK    LAXGUAGE.  [I.  vi.   5,   6. 

have  no  nicety  in  quoting  the  Old  Testament ;  all  they  would  I. 
want,  would  be  to  refer  their  hearers  to  it,  for  some  particular 
purpose:  they  could  not  falsify;  the  books  were  at  hand.  I 
should  think,  therefore,  reference  would  be  made  easily  and  34 
freely,  according  to  the  notions  or  reading  of  the  persons  ad 
dressed  at  any  particular  time.  To  a  Jew  who  was  accustomed 
to  the  LXX.,  the  LXX.  would  be  quoted ;  to  one  who  had 
traditional  modes  of  interpreting,  those  modes  would  be  a- 
dopted.  (See  Allix,  Unitarians,  chap,  ii,  iii,  iv ;  and  Bp. 
Chandler's  Defence,  chap,  iv,  and  v,  and  vi.)  Hence,  little 
can  be  built,  in  the  way  of  general  observation,  on  the  quota 
tions  which  occur;  they  leave  us  still  to  get  the  best  sense  we 
can  from  all  copies  and  versions  taken  together. 

5.  The  peculiarities  of  the  Septuagint  are  such  as  might 
be  expected  from  a  Jew's  writing  of  Jewish  matters,  belonging 
to  common  life,  in  the  Greek  language.    That  is,  Greek  words, 
combined  into  Jewish  idioms ;    and   sometimes  transferred  or 

borrowed,  to  express  things  unknown  amongst  the  Grecians 

If  I  wanted  to  give,  in  Sweden  for  instance,  a  notion  of  Addi- 
son's  delicate  humour,  I  could  not  do  it  in  English,  because  I 
should  not  be  understood ;  nor  in  Swedish,  because   I   know 
not  the  language  myself;  but  French  is  a  general  language; 
I  could  translate  Addison  into  French,  but  it  would  have  An 
glicisms  in  it,  on  two  accounts ;  because  I  was  an  Englishman, 
and  because  the  ideas  of  Addison  were  English ;   and  of  that 
ordinary  familiar  sort,  in  which  all  nations  differ  from  each 
other.     The  peculiarities  then  of  the  Septuagint  are,  in  short, 
Oriental  idioms  and  ideas.      One  thing,  which  makes  this  more 
attended  to,  is,  that  the  Greek  of  the  LXX.  naturally  became 
the  Greek  for  expressing  the  things  of  religion,  and  so  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament1. 

6.  The  expression  Hellenistic  Greek  seems  strange,   be 
cause  all  Greek  must  be  Hellenistic  in  some  sense.     But  all  .';,•> 
dispersed  Jews,  including  those  of  Alexandria  though  settled 
there,  who  forgot  their  own  ~  language,  and  got  to  talk  Greek 
familiarly    and    habitually,    would   be   Hellenists,   and    every 
thing  they  did  would  be  called  Hellenistic  ;  if  Jews  affected 
Grecian  manners,  they  might  be  called3  Hellenists,  as  might 


1  Syriac  words,  idioms  and   ideas  in 
New  Testament,  see  in  Wotton's  Misna. 
Pref.  p.  xviii. 

2  See  Limborch  on  Acts  vi.  1. 


3  Look  at  Diet.  Acad.  Franyoise :  that 
Diet,  gives  ITellenists  four  senses:  1. 
Alexandrian  Jews.  2.  The  Jews,  who 
spoke  the  language  of  the  LXX.  3.  The 


I.  vi.  7.] 


GREEK    LANGUAGE. 


25 


I.  Greeks  who  turned  Jews: — there  would,  in  this  way,  be  Hel 
lenistic  customs,  dress,  amusements,  &c. — and,  if  Hellenists 
spoke  a  peculiar  kind  of  Greek,  it  would  be  called  Hellenistic 

Greek This  Hellenistic  Greek  I  conceive  to  be  the  language 

of  Philo,  if  not  of  Joseph  us  ;  and  his  writing  Hellenistic  Greek 
is  one  principal  reason,  I  fancy,  why  his  language  is  of  im 
portance  to  Christians.  —  Parkhurst  mentions  KTI^W  in  the 
sense,  to  create,  as  being  Hellenistic.  The  authors  of  the 
apocryphal  books,  Ecclesiasticus,  Maccabees4,  are  called 
"  Hellenizing  Jews."1 — Pearson  on  the  Creed:  p.  127.  fol. 
(note  on,  Oeos  is  not  OeXrj/jia  Oeov.) 

We  see  now  what  it  is  to  understand  Greek  with  a  view  to 
the  sacred  books; — it  is  to  understand  the  Greek  tongue  in 
its  purity,  to  understand  the  oriental  idioms  mixed  with  it ; 
and  the  manner  in  which  they  are  mixed ;  the  proportion  of 
the  several  ingredients. 

7.  It  may  be  as  well  here,  as  any  where  else,  to  make 
some  mention  of  those  Translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  who 

lived  after  our  Saviour 1  shall  make  use  of  Montfaucorfs 

Preliminaria  to  Origen's  Hexapla ;  attempting  only  to  mention 
what  seems  most  probable,  without  making  any  decision  of  my 

36  own,  in  matters  of  so  much  uncertainty Symmachus  comes 

first  in  the  syllabus ;  perhaps  because  he  has  been  most  ap 
plauded  by  the  Fathers,  as  an  interpreter ;  but  I  will  now 
follow  the  usual  order. 

Aquila  is  said  to  have  been  a  Jew,  of  Pontus :  an  enemy  to 
Christianity :  scrupulously  adhering  to  the  Hebrew  copies ; 
even  so  as  to  make  his  own  expressions  sometimes  more  ob 
scure  than  the  Hebrew  itself.  The  Jews,  on  this  account 
perhaps,  reckon  him  the  most  accurate  of  all  the  interpreters. 
Christians  say,  that  he  has  distorted  some  passages,  particularly 
some  prophecies  relating  to  the  Messiah. 

Some  have  thought  Aquila  the  same  with  Onkelos,  (Brere- 
wood,  chap.  9.)  but  the  paraphrase  of  Onkelos  differs  much 
from  the  version  of  Aquila ;  though  the  same  person  might  be 
called  by  those  two  names. 

Symmachus  is  said  to  have  been  a  Samaritan,  and  to  have 
lived  under  Severus.  He  was  probably  an  Ebionite,  that  is, 
a  sort  of  Christian.  He  was  a  man  of  abilities,  and  of  taste, 


Jews,  who  accommodated  themselves  to 
Grecian  manners.  4.  The  Greeks,  who 
embraced  Judaism. 


4  Taylor  says,  this  book  is  in  Hellen 
istic  Greek :— on  Romans,  Key,  p.  121, 
bottom. 


26  SCRIPTURES    HOW    FIRST    PUBLISHED.         [I.  Vli.   1. 

much  praised  by  the  ancients.  He  wrote  such  Greek  as  not  I. 
to  seem  harsh  to  a  Grecian.  His  translation  is  free,  in  com 
parison  of  Aquila^s:  and  gives  generally  a  rational  sense. 
Indeed,  if  he  had  a  fault,  it  was  giving  a  rational  sense, 
when  he  did  not  thoroughly  understand  his  original :  this 
was,  not  submitting  to  own  that  a  passage  was  unintelligible 
to  him. 

Theodotion  seems  to  have  been  an  unbelieving  Jew,  of 
Ephesus,  under  Commodus,  and  therefore  to  have  lived  before 
Symmachus.  He  is  remarkable  for  having  followed  the  LXX. 
very  strictly :  so  that  when  the  LXX.  fails,  his  version  is  look 
ed  upon  as  supplying  the  defect.  Yet  he  sometimes  seems  to 
follow  Aquila. 

In  Origen's  Hexapla,  we  have,  in  some  places,  a  fifth, 
sixth,  and  seventh  interpreter ;  but  so  little  is  known  about 
these,  that  I  will  content  myself  with  barely  mentioning  them. 


CHAPTER   VII.  37 

OF    THE     MANNER     IN    WHICH    THE     SACRED    WRITINGS    WERE 
PUBLISHED,    BEFORE    THE    ART    OF    PRINTING    WAS    KNOWN. 

1.  THE  Art  of  printing  was  not  invented  till  the  15th 
century;  till  about  1140  or  1450.  The  sacred  books  there 
fore  must,  before  the  discovery  of  this  art,  appear  in  manu 
script  : — written  by  persons,  who  made  writing  books  their 
sole  occupation.  The  written  copies  of  the  whole  or  part  of 
the  Scriptures  are  mostly  handsome,  on  vellum,  or  cotton 
paper,  some  finely  illuminated,  but  frequently  worn,  and  diffi 
cult  to  be  read,  though,  in  many,  the  difficulty  goes  off  much 
sooner  than  is  at  first  expected. — They  are  dispersed  unequally 
through  the  world ;  ecclesiastical  history  teaches  us  where  to 
expect  the  most :  many  are  of  little  value ;  some  are  very  pre 
cious  ;  the  latter  are  known  like  famous  men,  and  have  charac 
ters  peculiar  to  themselves  respectively,  which  characters  it  is 
a  part  of  learning  to  know. 

It  is  natural  to  ask  after  the  originals  of  the  books  of 
Scripture,  written  by  the  inspired  penmen  themselves :  most 
men  are  agreed,  that  these  autographs  do  not  exist :  a  gospel 
of  St.  Mark  is  shewn  as  his  autograph  at  Venice,  where  he  is 


I.  vii.  2,  3.]       SCRIPTURES    HOW    FIRST    PUBLISHED. 


I.   the  patron  saint ;   but  unfortunately  it  is  not  settled,  whether 
the  characters  are  Greek  or  Latin  l. 

2.  Let  no  one  be  discouraged  at  this ;  the  Author  of  JVa- 

38  ture  may  be  nevertheless  the  Author  of  the  Gospel ;   as  we  arc 
left  to  take  the  bad  consequences  of  the  carelessness  of  man 
kind  in  the  things  of  nature,  so  are  we  in  the  dispensations  of 
grace.     No  objection  can  arise  from  hence  to  the  divine  au 
thority  of  the  sacred  books. 

Those  who  are  discouraged  by  human  accidents  happening 
to  the  sacred  writings,  seem  to  mistake  the  nature  of  what  is 
called  a  particular  Providence.  Providence  may  guide  each 
particular  event,  and  yet  Man  have  only  a  general  belief  that 
it  does  so.  It  is  one  thing  (and  a  very  reasonable  thing)  to 
have  such  a  belief:  it  is  another,  and  a  very  different  one,  to 
think  that  we  can  point  out,  how  such  particular  Providence  is 
to  employ  itself  on  any  occasion. 

3.  For  the  age  of  MSS,  we  may  look  at  Dr.  Kennicott's 
State  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  vol.  I.  p.  307,  or  ten  Annual  Ac 
counts,  p.  144 2. — The  old  ones  are  a  continued  series  of  let 
ters,    sometimes  of  the  same  size  and  at  the  same  distance, 
without   any  divisions,   so  much  as  into  words,  without  any 
points,  or  with  very  few ;   and  therefore  they  afford  room  for 
perpetual  study  and  improvement.      Ends  of  lines  there  must 
be.      Lines  sometimes  contained  a  certain  number  of  letters, 
and  were  called  crri^oi3:   sometimes  a  set  of  words  expressing 
a  meaning  in  some  degree  separate,  and  such  lines  are  called  4 
ptjimara. — The  ancients  have  left  us  Stichometries,  by  which 

39  name  they  call  catalogues  of  the  canonical  books,   with   the 
number  of  verses   contained  in  each5.      The  Masora  of  the 
Jews  answered  this  same  purpose. — In  the  year  396,  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  were  divided  into  lessons  or  chapters.      In  490 6,  an 
edition  was  first  published  with  lessons,  chapters  and  verses. 
Our  kind  of  verses  were  invented  by  Robert  Stephens  in  1551 7. 


1  Michaelis,  Sect.  12.  4to. 

2  I  wish  it  had  been  the  custom  to  say 
when  a  MS.  was  probably  written,  in 
stead  of  saying  it  is  so  many  years  old. 
Lard.  Works,  v.  252,  does  talk  of  the 
Alexandrian  being  written  in  the  4th  or 
5th  Century;  and  so  does  Dr.   Woide. 
Dr.  Powell  expresses  it,  p.  65,  "some  of 
them,  as  is  probable,  have  been  preserved 
more  than  a  thousand  years." 


OS  seems  to  mean  a  row  of  any 
thing;  men,  trees,  words. 

4  Michaelis,  quarto,  sects.  36  and  45. 
See  Simon's  Crit.  Hist,  last  chap.  (p.  180.) 

5  Lard.  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  258. 

6  Michaelis,  sect.  45.  quarto. 

7  In  the  last  chapter  of  Simon's  Critical 
History,  are  several  things  to  our  present 
purpose :  at  one  time,  St.  Matthew  was 
said  to  contain  68  titles  and  355  chapters : 
and  so  of  the  rest.    Names  are  arbitrary. 


28 


SCRIPTURES    HOW    FIRST    PUBLISHED.       [I.  vii.  4,  5. 


They  are  useful  for  finding  passages;  but  Mr.  Locke  advises  us    I. 
to  neglect  them  all,  when  we  want  to  find  the  real  scope  of  any 
part  of  Scripture. 

4.  Mr.  Casley's  Preface  to  his  catalogue  of  MSS.  in  the 
King  of  England's  Library,  may  be  read  with  profit  by  any 
one  who  wishes  to  pursue  this  part  of  literature.      And  Wet- 
stein's  Introduction  to  his  New  Testament l. 

5.  It  may  be  proper  to  take  an  instance  or  two  of  MSS; — 
first,  let  us  take  the  Alexandrian.     It  is  in  four  volumes,  of 
such  a  size  as  to  be  called  sometimes  folio,  sometimes2  quarto; 
the  three  first  contain  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  version  of  the 
LXX. ;   the  4th,  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  but  not 
quite  complete.      The  age  of  it  is  not  entirely  agreed  upon  ;  it 
might  be  written  in  or  near  the  5th  century :   it  was  probably 
written  in  ^Egypt ;   possibly  at  Alexandria,  where  they  used  to 
write  remarkably  well.      According  to  tradition,  it  was  written 
by  a  noble  ./Egyptian  lady,    named    Thecla,   soon  after  the 
Council  of  Nice.      So  says  an  inscription  of  Cyrillus  Lucaris,  40 
to  whom  this  nation  was  indebted  for  it.      He,  removing  from 
the  patriarchate  of  Alexandria  to  that  of  Constantinople,  took 

it  with  him  :  he  had  been  in  several  parts  of  Europe :i,  and 
favoured  the  Reformed  Religion.  Pope  Urban  VIII,  at  that 
time  making  a  strong  effort  to  reunite  the  Roman  and  Greek 
churches,  Cyril  opposed  the  union,  and  wished  to  make  one 
between  the  Greek  church  and  the  Reformed ;  he  was  after 
wards  put  to  death,  through  the  intrigues  of  the  see  of  Rome, 
by  the  Emperor  of  the  Turks,  for  treason.  He  seems  to 
have  been  a  man  of  an  enlarged  mind 4.  His  good- will  to  the 
Reformed  appears  by  letters  now  published  ;  he  was  strongly 
supported  by  the  English  ambassador,  and  he  might  probably 
think,  that  the  Scriptures  had  best  be  lodged  where  all  men 
were  Christians,  and  where  Christianity  was  reformed.  How 
ever  that  was,  he  gave,  when  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  the 
Alexandrian  MS.  to  King  Charles  the  First,  of  England,  about 
the  year  1628,  through  his  friend  Sir  Thomas  Roe,  the  English 
ambassador.  It  was  in  the  royal  library  (and  is  mentioned 


1  Consult  also  Kennicott.    Dr.  Woidc. 
Lai-drier's    Indexes.      Simon's     Critical 
History  of  the  New  Testament. 

2  Dr.  Woide  says  it  was  originally  folio ; 
and  Sir  Thomas  Roe  calls  it  k(a  large 
Book ;"  but  the  margin  has  been  cut,  so 


as,  I  think,  to  take  off  the  contents  of 
chapters,  &c. 

3  Mosheim.   Index. 

4  His  history,  by  Thomas  Smith  in  his 
Miscellanies,  probably  might  be  worth 
reading:  Sir  Thomas  Roe's  Negotiations, 
I  think,  are  :  Smith  calls  him  a  martyr. 


I.  Vlii.  1.]  VARIOUS     READINGS.  29 

I.  as  there  by  Mr.  Casley),  till  the  king  gave  it  to  the  British 
Museum,  where  it  is  now  lodged.  Mill,  Grabe,  Walton,  Wet- 
stein,  in  their  several  Prolegomena,  have  spoken  of  this  MS, 
but  the  description  of  it  is  now  become  less  necessary  by  Dr. 
Woide's  having  published  a  facsimile  of  the  4th  volume,  or 
New  Testament,  which  I  am  able  to  shew  you. — Dr.  Woide's 
preface  shews  how  much  this  one  MS.  may  be  made  a  man's 
study 5. 

41  If  any  one  has  curiosity  about  the  famous  Cambridge  MS, 
given  to  the  University  by  Theodore  Beza,  he  will,  ere  long, 
be  able  to  see G  a  facsimile  of  that ;  and  mean  time  may  read 
a  short  account  of  it  in  Michaelis's  Introd.  Lect.,  sect.  25,  and 
a  longer  one  in  Du  Pin  and  Simon's  Critical  History,  and  in 
the  prolegomena  of  Mill  and  Wetstein.  "  It  contains  the  Gos 
pels  and  the  Acts,  together  with  an  ancient  Latin  Version." — 
Lardner  speaks 7  unfavourably  of  it. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

OF     VARIOUS    READINGS. 

WE  have  lost  the  originals  of  the  sacred  books ;  and  not 
only  so,  but  those  MSS.  which  we  have,  differ  from  each  other 
in  many  particulars :  and  there  is  no  authority  to  decide  which 
is  right. 

1.  Some  persons  seem  to  have  denied  the  fact ;  formerly 
as  to  the  whole  Scripture,  (Kennicott's  Gen.  Diss.  end  of  Hebr. 
Bible)  but  of  late  only  as  to  the  Old  Testament.  They  assert 
what  they  call  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  Text; — but  it 
seems  rather  difficult  to  understand,  how  copies  can  differ  from 
each  other,  and  none  of  them  be  corrupt :  it  seems  as  if  all  but 
one  must  be  so,  nay  possibly  that  one  also. — And  it  seems 
equally  difficult  to  understand,  how  any  learned  man  can  get 

5  The  order  of  the  parts  of  the  N.  T.       3d  Epistles  of  John  are  joined  to  the 


in  the  Alexandrian  copy  seems  best  con 
ceived  this  way ; — Gospels,  Acts,  Gene 
ral  Epistles  (of  James,  Peter,  John) — 
Epistles  to  particular  Churches,  ending 
with  Hebrews; — Epistles  to  individuals, 
Timothy,  Titus,  Philemon ;  —  Apoca 
lypse — Though,  to  be  sure,  the  2d  and  |  7  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  157. 


first;  and  the  Hebrews  were  not  a  par 
ticular  church. 

c  This  facsimile  has  been  now  (1J9C) 
published  some  time,  and  has  been  in 
creasing  in  value  ever  since  its  publica 


tion. 


30  VARIOUS    READINGS.  [I.  viil.   1. 

any  copy,  which  he  can  reckon  the  only  right  one : — a  com-   I. 
mon  person  reads  his  Bible,  and  has  no  idea  of  any  other  copy 
besides  that  which  he  reads ;  but  a  learned  man  must  know  *, 
that  copies  of  the  best  character  differ  considerably  from  each 
other. 

It  seems,  however,  right  to  mention  this  notion  of  the  in 
tegrity  of  the  Hebrew  text;  and  that  it  was  maintained  in 
1753;  yet  not  all  who  favour  the  notion,  hold  that  the  Jews2 
never  transcribed  wrong:  some  only  say  never  considerably 
wrong:  Dr.  Kennicott  set  out  with  this  opinion3,  or  prejudice:  43 
Wolfius,  Buxtorf,  Pococke,  are  perhaps  the  most  respectable 
of  those  individuals,  who  have  given  into  this  way  of  thinking ; 
and  it  seems  as  if  in  Switzerland  the  candidates  for  orders 

were   obliged   to   subscribe   to   this  integrity But   we  have 

names  of  equal  weight  on  our  side;  Mede,  Lowth,  Capell, 
&c. — A  good  account  of  them  is  to  be  found  in  Dr.  Kennicott's 
General  Dissertation,  at  the  end  of  his  Bible. — This  error 
seems  to  turn,  as  that  about  decay  of  manuscripts  lately  men 
tioned,  on  a  presumption,  that  a  particular  Providence  must 
guard  things  really  sacred. 

Nevertheless,  if  we  think  of  the  matter,  we  must  say,  that 
naturally,  the  oftener  any  work  is  transcribed,  the  more  mis 
takes  there  will  be  in  it :  therefore  naturally  many  more  mis 
takes  must  be  in  the  copies  of  the  Old  Testament  than  in  those 
of  the  New.  Shall  we  then  presume  to  estimate  supernatural 
protection  ?  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  do  so,  we  must  say,  that 
the  New  Testament  is  as  likely  to  have  a  perpetual  miracle 
wrought  in  its  favour,  as  the  Old.  Jews  indeed  might  not 
allow  this;  but  some  Jews4  confess,  that  there  are  errors  in 
Hebrew  copies  of  the  Bible ;  and,  when  they  correct  any 
copies,  they  tacitly  own  the  same  thing.  The  Keri  seem5 
nothing  but  various  readings;  and  the  Masorites6  themselves 
do  not  deny  it. 

It  would  carry  us  too  far  to  dwell  on  particular  instances 
of  faults  in  MSS.  of  the  Old  Testament;  Dr.  Kennicott  has 
mentioned  several,  in  his  State  of  the  Hebrew  Text :  the 
student  may  examine  that  in  Psalm  xvi.  10. — That  relating 


Our  present  Hebrew  Bibles,  Kennicott 


says,  are  from  the  latest  and  worst  ^ 
and   from   the  edit,   of  Ben  Chaim   in 
1525.    Ann.  Accounts,  p.  25.  \4',">. 

2  Kennicott's  State,  vol.  I.  p.  9.  237. 
264.  230. 


:i  Annual  Accounts,  p.  7« 

4  Ken.  p.  246. 

5  See  Kennicott's   State,  &c.  vol.  n. 
p.  4152.  from  Jablonski. 

"  Kennicott's  State,  &c.  Index,  Inte 
grity. 


I.  viii.  2.] 


VARIOUS    READINGS. 


31 


I.  to  the  time  of  the  Hebrews  dwelling  in  ^Egypt : — Exod.  xii. 

44  40. — and  the  account  of  600  various  readings  in  the  thanks 
giving  Ode  of  David,  recorded  2  Sam. 7  xxii.  and  Psalm  xviii : 
which  last  will  give  an  idea  of  the  manner  of  getting  at  the 

true  text,  by  a  comparison  of  several  faulty  copies For  what 

is  done  in  one  ode  or  song,  may  be  done  in  the  whole  Old 
Testament. 

Bp.  Warburton,  in  his  "Doctrine  of  Grace,"  treats  this 
notion  of  the  integrity,  Sec.  as  superstitious,  (p.  42.)  The 
Orobio  there  mentioned  was  a  Spanish  Jew,  who  pretended  to 
be  a  Christian,  of  the  Romish  church ;  he  was  cotemporary 
with  Limborch,  and  had  a  friendly  controversial  conference 
with  him ;  which  is  much  commended  by  Bp.  Warburton,  in 
his  directions  for  studying  Divinity. 

2.  Having  spoken  of  the  fact,  that  there  are  various  read 
ings,  not  only  in  the  New  Testament  but  in  the  Old,  we  will 
take  an  instance  of  one  person  who  has  collected  various  read 
ings  in  the  former,  and  of  one  who  has  collected  them  in  the 
latter ;  Dr.  Mill,  and  Dr.  Kennicott ; — premising  only  this 
definition ;  (Ken.  I.  272.)  varia  est  lectio,  ubicunque  varie 
legitur ;  in  word  or  letter ;  or  in  the  relative  placing  of  the 
same  word  or  letter. 

Dr.  Mill8  collected  no  less  than  30,000  different  readings  in 
the  New  Testament :  as  appears  from  his  Prolegomena  to  his 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  published  in  folio  at  Oxford 
1707.  The  work  took  him  30  years9:  And  to  these,  additions 
have  been  made  by  Kuster,  Bengelius,  &c.  Mill  collated 
about  112  MSS10. 

45  Dr.  Kennicott  began  to  collate  Hebrew  MSS.  of  the  Old 
Testament  under  the  protection  of  the  publick  in  1760;  but, 
more  strictly,  he  began  his  work  in  1751,  as  he  tells  us  at  the 
opening  of  his  general  dissertation,   at  the  end  of  his  Bible ; 
and  he  collated  till  1770:   he  passed  other  ten  years  or  more, 
in  preparing  and  publishing  his  Hebrew  Bible  in  two  vols. 
folio;  which  came  out  in  1780.      He  had  above  £9000 n  sub 
scribed,  which  he  may  be  said  to  have  expended  on  his  work : 
a  work  greatly  respected  in  Europe,  and  carried  on  not  only  in 


7  Kenn.  State,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  218.  397. 
and  vol.  11.   p.  5(55,   &c.    and  compare 
Kenn.  Annual  Accounts,  p.  18. 

8  Of  Queen's  Coll.  Oxf.  died  in  170/. 

9  Kenn.  Annual — p.  157. 


10  Dr  Kennicott's  Annual  Account  for 
1/G9.     Ten  Ann.  Accts.  p.  lfir>. 

11  See  Ten  Annual  Accounts,  p.  171, 
&c. 


VARIOUS     READINGS. 


fl.  viii.  3. 


Europe  but  in  Asia  and  Africa l ;   his  Ten  Annual  Accounts    I. 
of  the  progress  of  his  work  after  it  was  publicly  supported, 

make  now  an  interesting  little  volume As  to  the  number  of 

MSS.  and  editions  compared,  I  think  he  says,  in  his  Disserta 
tion  at  the  end  of  his  Bible,  that  they  amount  "  ad  numerum 
fere  septingentesimum  ;" — in  1769  he  had  265  collations  to 
digest ;  which,  if  we  reflect  that  the  collations  were  made  by 
comparing  letter  with  letter,  is  prodigious ! — Some  of  the 
more  distant  foreign  collations  had  not  then  arrived  in  Eng 
land.  358  MSS.  had  been  used  at  the  end  of  the  Pentateuch : 
see  the  Bible,  vol.  i.  end  of  Deut. 

Of  the  number  of  variations  in  these  265  collations  we  may 
form  some  idea,  if  we  observe,  that  there  were  1200  in  one 
single  collation ;  in  comparing  two  very  accurate  printed  edi 
tions ;  that  of  1488  printed  at  Soncino  (the  first  printed  edi 
tion,  I  think,  of  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible)  with  Van.  Hooght's 
Amst.  1705. 

We  have  already  said,  that  there  were  600  various  readings 
in  collating  2  Sam.  xxii.  with  the  18th  Psalm. 

I  feel  myself  interested  about  the  Pentateuch  partly  ex-  46 
pected  from   Naplose    (Sichem,    at  the  foot  of  Gerizim  and 
Ebal) — and  I  feel  a  wish,  that  Dr.  Kennicott  had  consulted 
his  health  more,  though  he  had  left  part  of  his  work  to  others. 

3.  The  variations  here  spoken  of  are  not  such  as  to  affect 
our  faith  or  practice  in  any  thing  material :  they  are  mostly  of 

a  minute,   sometimes  of  a  trifling  nature Dr.  Powell  says, 

" 2  The  worst  manuscript  extant  would  not  pervert  one  article 
of  our  faith,  or  destroy  one  moral  precept.1' — We  may  look 
at  an  instance  or  two  of  the  most  important  sort. — That  men 
tioned  in  Bp.  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  p.  610.  1st  edit.  p.  303. 
folio3. — And  that  considered  by  Lardner,  in  his  Credibility, 
&c.,  Act.  xv.  20,  29. — Even  1  John  v.  7.  is  not  the  only  text, 
nor  perhaps  one  of  the  principal,  on  which  our  faith  in  the 
Trinity  is  founded. 


1  One  MS.  from  a  Jew  in  America  is 
mentioned,  Ann.  Accts.  p.  101. 

-  P.  G5.  3  1  Cor.  xv.  51. 

Omnes  dormiemus,    non    autem  omnes 

immutabimur.     (Alex.) 
Omnes  resurgemus,    non   autem  omnes 

immutabimur.     (Vulgate. ) 
Non    omnes    dormiemus,   omnes  autem 
immutabimur.     (ours.) 
Here  is  seemingly  a  great  difference; 


but  we  all  believe  every  one  of  these 
three  affirmations. 

We  shall  all  die,  one  way  or  other,  but 
not  all  in  that  way  which  is  called 


There  shall  be  a  general  resurrection, 
but  not  'a  general  c/i(t>i</in(/. 

Not  all  men  shall  go  to  </wrtv,  (some 
shall  be  taken  up  into  the  air,  &c.  ); 
but  we  shall  all  have  spiritual  bodies. 


I.  viii.  4,  5.]  VARIOUS  READINGS.  33 

I,          In  the  Old  Testament  it  is  observed,  that  a  great  number 
of  the  variations  are  in  names  and  numbers  4. 

4.  Nevertheless,  the  variations  which  we  find  are  not  to  be 
neglected  as  of  no  consequence :   had  we  no  instances  to  prove 
this,  we  could  see,  that  it  must  be  presumptuous  and  disre 
spectful  to  neglect  bringing  as  near  perfection  as  possible  the 

47  sacred  oracles Who  could  have  thought  that  so  much  would 

have  been  said,  as  has  been  by  the  Socinians,  on  the  difference 
between  Oeos  and  o  Ocos  ?...Chrysostom's  comparison  of  the 
Scripture  to  gold,  as  to  weighing  every  grain  of  it,  is  just  and 
reasonable. 

5.  Our  business  then,  as  scholars  and  Christians,  seems 
to  require,  that  we  should  reflect  a  little  on  the  causes  of  those 
varieties,  which  have  been  described ;  it  may  be  some  satisfac 
tion  to  see  how  they  may  be  owing  to  men,  and  need  not  be 
charged  upon  Moses  and  the  prophets5. — 

Those,  who  write,  may  be  either  disinterested  or  inte 
rested  ,-  though  disinterested,  they  will  run  into  mistakes,  with 
out  great  and  constant  care ;  even  supposing  them  to  understand 
what  they  write ;  in  that  case,  they  will  often  affect  great  sa 
gacity,  and  get  wrong,  through  a  desire  of  doing  something 

uncommonly  ingenious If  they  do  not  understand  what  they 

write,  they  are  every  moment  in  danger  of  error ;  particularly, 
when  they  copy  books,  (we  may  say  from  experience)  of  taking 
marginal  notes  into  the  text. 

But  some  scribes  have  been  interested,  either  as  getting 
their  livelihood  by  writing,  or  as  wanting  to  have  expressions 
favour  some  particular  opinions ; — in  the  first  case,  they  would 
take  a  sentence  by  the  lump,  be  unwilling  to  blot,  and  make 
themselves  easy  if  what  they  wrote  came  much  to  the  same,  as 
what  they  ought  to  have  written6. — In  the  latter  case,  if  they 
wanted  to  favour  certain  opinions,  they  would  be  guilty  of 
pious  or  malicious  frauds. 

So   far   we  have   supposed    scribes   to   write    singly ;    but 

48  several  might  be  obliged  to  copy  from  one  original;   in  that 
case,  sometimes  the  eye,  sometimes  the  ear  (when  one  dictated 
to  several,)  would  mislead  them  :  and  wrong  words  would  often 
be  substituted  for  right  ones,   when   there  was  a  likeness  of 
shape,  or  a  likeness  of  sound. 

4  Kennicott's State,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  11, 12.    |    niunt,  sed  quod  intelligunt,  et  dum  alie- 
•"'  Ibid.  p.  271.  j    nos  errores  emendate  nituntur,  ostendunt 

u  Scribunt  (Librarii)  non  quod  inve-    i    suos. 

VOL.  I.  3 


34  VARIOUS  READINGS.  [I.  viii.  6 — 8. 

If  we  wish  confirmation  of  this,  we  may  read  Lardner's   I. 
account  of  Origen. 

Dr.  Kennicott  observes1,  that  all  variations  must  be  made 
by  omission,  addition,  transposition,  or  change. — And,  in  his 
directions3  to  collators,  he  tells  them  to  observe  all  differences 
of  words  and  letters,  of  each  MS.  from  some  printed  copy, 
whether  they  be  1.  additions;  2.  omissions;  3.  transpositions; 

4.  variations;   5.  corrections;  6.  rasures But  these  are  rather 

modes  of  varying,  than  causes:  they  are  sources  of  various 
readings. 

6.  It  may  be  proper,  after  considering  the  causes  of 
various  readings,  to  take  a  specimen  of  the  ways  of  reasoning 
in  order  to  ascertain  the  right  reading. 

1.  The  earlier  manuscript,  ceteris  paribus,  is  more  likely 
to  be  right  than  the  later,  because  every  copying  is  liable  to 
new  errors. 

2.  The  greater  number  of  MSS.  confirm  any  reading, 
the  more  probable  that  reading  is;  care  being  taken,  that  any 
manuscript,  with  all  that  have  been  copied  from  it,  shall  be 
reckoned  only  as  one. 

3.  If  a  reading  seems  likely  to  have  been  an  error  of  a 
writer,  it  may  be  rejected ;   as  when  marks  without  meaning 
resemble  others  that  have  meaning;  and  these  are  only  found 
in  few  MSS. 

4.  If  a  reading  A  may  have  arisen  out  of  another  read 
ing  B,  but  B  cannot  have  arisen  out  of  A,  then  is  B  the  more 
probable  reading3. 

5.  That  reading,  which  makes  a  passage  more  connected    49 
is  preferable ;  all  due  allowance  being  made  for  abruptness  in 
the  particular  case.      St.  Paul  is  apt  to  digress  abruptly. 

6\  Yet  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  an  obscure  reading 
is  less  likely  to  be  a  conjectural  emendation  than  a  perspicu 
ous  one. 

7-  Nay,  some  errors  are  recommendations;  because  vo 
luntary  corruptions  are  more  to  be  feared  than  involuntary ; 
and  errors  sometimes  prove,  that  the  transcribers  do  not  intend 
to  falsify. 

8.  Allied  to  this,  is  one  of  the  most  unexpected  criteria: 
viz.  that  in  a  quotation,  in  two  copies  compared,  if  one  is  in- 

1  State,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  'I~f2.  !       3  I  take  the  substance  at  least  of  these 

..  rp       A  criteria  to  be  in  Michaelis's  Introd.  Leet. 

-  Ten  Annual  Accounts,  p.  3l>. 

;   to  Gr.  Test,  4to. 


I.  viii.  .9.] 


VARIOUS     READINGS. 


I.  accurate,  the  inaccurate  quotation  is  the  right  reading,  and 
therefore  will  recommend  the  copy.  If  the  writer  of  that 
which  is  accurate  could  consult  the  book  from  which  the  quo 
tation  is  made,  there  is  a  suspicion,  that  he  might  correct 
by  it,  instead  of  transcribing  faithfully ;  in  which  case,  we 
should  have  a  juster  quotation,  but  a  false  reading.  Now 
what  we  want  is  the  genuine  reading.  Supposing  St.  Mark 
quoted  Isaiah  inaccurately,  or  according  to  a  Hebrew  copy 
different  from  the  copyists;  the  copyist,  instead  of  transcrib 
ing  simply,  might  turn  to  Isaiah,  and  make  St.  Mark  quote 
(as  he  thinks)  accurately ; — whereas,  no  scribe  would  ever  be 
tempted  to  make  St.  Mark  quote  inaccurately ;  therefore  he, 
who  gives  the  inaccurate  quotation,  is  the  more  faithful  scribe, 
and  his  reading  the  genuine  reading. — Such  fidelity  may  be 
the  means  of  making  us  correct  our  present  copies. 

9-  I  conclude  these  criteria  with  observing,  that  perusing 
those  authors,  who  quote  the  Scriptures,  may  be  a  great  help 
towards  investigating  the  true  text. — Many  quotations  of  the 
50  Old  Testament  are  made  in  the  Talmuds4,  and  principal 
Jewish  comments,  composed  five  or  six  hundred  years  ago. — 
And  many,  from  both  old  and  new,  occur  in  the  Christian 
Fathers.  Had  not  Origen's  works  been  in  part  lost,  it  is 
thought  we  should  have  known  how  every5  part  of  Scripture 
was  read  early  in  the  third  century. 

This  last6  criterion  is  like  that  of  Versions;  which  will 
occur  in  the  next  chapter. 

In  short,  avoiding  various  readings  has  been  rather  a  mat 
ter  of  prejudice,  religious  apprehension,  not  distinguishing- 
religious  books  from  religion,  than  of  judgment;  and  I  should 
think,  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text  will  henceforth  be 
very  little  more  defended  than  that  of  the  Greek.  Though 
collecting  variations  in  different  copies  of  Scripture  does  imply 
some  imperfection,  yet  every  rational  collation  will  bring  us 
nearer  to  the  possession  of  the  genuine  word  of  God :  men 
dread  entering  upon  painful,  uncomfortable,  disgraceful  reme 
dies,  or  series  of  expedients,  however  necessary  for  their  health 
or  fortune ;  but,  after  they  are  fairly  entered,  they  feel  them 
selves  in  the  right  way.  I  must  confess,  with  regard  to  the 


4  Kenn.  Annual  Accounts,  p.  114. 

5  Lardner,   Credib.   in   Origen.     See 
also  in  Cyprian,   and    Pearson  on  the 
Creed,  about  1  Cor.  xv.  51. 


6  If  any  one  wishes  to  carry  this  matter 
farther,  he  may  have  recourse  to  Wetstein's 
43  Canons,  and  the  confirmation  of  them  : 
his  Gr.  Test,  in  12mo  contains  them. 


36  VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACRED    WRITINGS.         [I.  ix.   1. 

imperfections  and  corruptions  of  the  text  of  Scripture,  I  have  I. 
a  satisfaction  in  feeling  myself  a  man ;  on  the  same  footing  in 
that,  as  in  other  important  concerns.  I  feel,  in  being  so 
situated,  a  security  from  enthusiasm  and  superstition;  I  feel 
a  call  to  exert  myself  in  recovering  the  purity  of  Revelation, 
on  principles  of  reason  and  experience,  by  a  method  which 
must  naturally  bring  on  an  attention  to  the  sacred  writings.  51 
I  feel  a  liberal  freedom  in  being  exempted  from  all  induce 
ments  to  use  or  adopt  pious  frauds ;  than  which,  especially  in 
falsifying  the  word  of  God,  nothing  can  be  more  abhorrent 
from  piety,  nothing  more  presumptuous1. — Nay  more:  though 
it  is  certainly  a  fault  to  alter  the  sacred  writings,  by  design 
or  negligence;  and  an  evil  to  have  them  altered;  yet  the  inci 
dental  good  arising  out  of  evil  shews,  in  this  case  as  in  many 
others,  the  astonishing  wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  Divine  go 
vernment  :  we  are  now  precisely  so  situated,  that  our  faith 
and  morals  are  not  hurt  by  the  variations  of  copies  of  the 
Scripture,  and  yet  so  that  we  are  forcibly  impelled  to  examine 
them  minutely;  the  result  must  be,  that  the  faults  of  our  pre 
decessors  can  scarcely  escape  us,  and  that  we  shall  make  per 
petual  improvements. 


CHAPTER    IX.  52 

OF    VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACRED    WRITINGS. 

1.  IF  we  look  back  to  the  time  when  the  Pentateuch 
was  first  published,  and  view  the  state  of  the  Israelites  from 
that  time  to  the  separation  of  the  twelve  tribes  into  ten  and 
two,  we  have  only  the  idea  of  one  single  community ;  and 
though  from  Dan  to  Beersheba  might  be  a  considerable  dis 
tance,  yet  the  people  were  so  united,  by  the  nature  of  their 
worship,  that  they  would  not  want  the  Scriptures  in  more 
than  one  language.  Nor  would  any  translations  be  required 

1  It  is  to  be  feared,  that  some  eminent   I   (Kenn.  State,  n.31 .)  And  MrTravis  gives 


men,  who  have  a  great  part  of  their  lives 
employed  h'ne  talents  in  the  service  of 
religion,  have  given  into  deceits. — Even 
iip.  Walton  is  said  to  have  been  too 
peremptory  in  speaking  from  his  own 


a  very  indifferent  account  of  Erasmus. 
Such  men  must  have  deceived  themselves 
by  some  prejudices ;  and,  in  som  eway, 
must  have  confounded  religion  with  some 
human  means  of  promoting  what  they 


knowledge  about  the  Samaritan  Version.       took  for  granted  was  the  real  will  of  God. 


I.   ix.  2.]          VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACKED    WRITINGS. 


I.  for  foreigners,  because  they  were  idolaters,  and  the  religion 
of  Israel  was  intended  to  separate  its  professors  from  neigh 
bouring  nations. — And,  when  the  twelve  tribes  became  two 
separate  communities,  they  continued  in  the  same  country, 
and  though  some  provincial  dialects  might  gradually  arise,  yet 
the  Scriptures  in  the  original  language  would  continue  in 
telligible,  and  capable  of  being  read  to  the  common  people. — 
But  when  the  main  body  of  both  communities  were  carried 
captive  to  Babylonia,  a  greater  dispersion  took  place,  a  greater 
mixture  with  strangers,  and  of  course  a  greater  variety  of 
dialects;  the  Hebrew  got  mixed  with  the  Chaldee  at  Babylon, 
and  with  the  Syriac  in  Palestine ;  and  therefore  would  become 
a  kind  of  Syro+Chaldaic*  language,  in  whatever  character  it 
was  written. 

53  2.      Hence  it  may  not  be  difficult  to  conceive  the  nature 

and  end  of  the  Samaritan  version;  it  is  supposed  to  have  been 
made  about  the  time3  of  Ezra,  a  little  above  400  years  before 
Christ :  at  that  time,  there  would  be  people  in  Samaria,  who 
would  want  copies  of  the  Pentateuch ;  and,  in  making  them, 
it  would  be  natural  to  modernize  them  so  that  they  would 
be  read  with  the  greatest  ease  and  readiness.  If  one  looks 
at  a  Samaritan  Grammar,  which  I  take  to  be  a  set  of  rules 
for  reading  this  Samaritan  version,  one  may  conceive,  that  the 
Samaritans,  400  years  before  Christ,  might  understand  what  we 
call  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  or  Samaritan  text,  full  as  well 
as  common  Englishmen  could  now  read  Wickliffe's  English 
Bible;  but  they  might  want  something  nearer  present  spelling 
and  phraseology,  as  much  as  we  do4.  Whether  we  should 
call  Wickliffe's  English  Bible  in  modern  letters,  spelling  and 
idioms,  a  version  of  Wickliffe's  Bible,  is  not  material ;  we 
rather  should  not ;  and  therefore  I  am  inclined  to  say,  there 
was  no  translation,  strictly  speaking,  before  that  of  the  LXX. 
• — As  to  the  difference  between  the  Samaritan  text1'  and 
version,  it  is  very  small;  Kennicott  says,  that  the  version 
in  general  "  expresses  exactly  the  fl  words  of  the  text;*'  I  sup 
pose,  it  differs  no  more  than  might  very  easily  be  accounted 
for  by  supposing  it  to  have  been  taken  from  a  copy  a  little 


2  Kenn.  State,  u.  310. 

3  Kennicott's  State,  vol.  n.  p.  30.  316. 
Walton's    Prolegomena :     but    Walton 
speaks  of  more  than  one  version  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch ;  of  one  into  Greek, 
another  into  Arabic. 


4  This  idea  is  only  my  own  imagina 
tion. 

5  Masclef,  Pref.  to  Samaritan  Gram 
mar.     u  Pluribus  in  locis  discrepare." 

6  State,  i.  430. 


38  VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACRED    WRITINGS.       [I.  IX.  3 5. 

different  from  that  which  we  have ;  nay,  the  mere  transcrib-   I. 
ing  might  perhaps  account  for  such  variations  as  are  found. 
Walton  has   noted  them  at  the  bottom  of  the  column,  that   54 
contains  the  Latin  translation  of  the   Samaritan1   text. 

When,  through  Alexander's  conquests,  and  other  causes, 
Greek  became  a  general  language ;  and  when,  by  Ptolemy^s 
carrying  the  Jews  into  ./Egypt,  they  became  much  dispersed ; 
a  Greek  version  was  found  needful.  But  of  this  we  spoke 
particularly,  in  the  last  chapter2. 

3.  The  Chaldee  paraphrases  of  30nkelos  on  the  Law, 
and  Jonathan  on  the  Prophets,  are  of  great  antiquity,   and 
throw  light  upon  the  sacred  text ;  but  they  cannot  be  called 
versions4 ;  and  if  they  could,  it  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  their 
age.      I   should  think,   the  Jews  made  some  sort  of  Chaldee 
paraphrases,  soon  after  the  Babylonish  captivity,  or  during  it ; 
but  we  do  not  know  of  what  sort  they  were ;  they  might  not 
be  written.      No  one  places  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  (I  think) 
higher  than   our   Saviour's  time ;   and   from   their  not  being 
mentioned  by  the  early  Christian  writers  (as  Origen,  Jerom, 
Epiphanius,   &c.)  great  doubts  have  arisen  when  they  lived, 
or  5who  they  were6. 

4.  Christians  differed  much  from  Jews,  as  to  their  mo 
tives  for  spreading  translations.      The  Jewish  religion  was  to  55 
constitute  a  separate  people ;  the  Christian  was  to  be  preached 

to  "  all  nations."  And  the  Christian  dispensation  consists,  in 
part,  of  the  Old  Testament The  LXX.  incidentally  pub 
lished  the  Revelation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  world, 
though  they  aimed  only  to  accommodate  Jews ;  Christians  de 
sired  to  propagate  their  sacred  writings  all  over  the  world  : 
it  was  a  part  of  their  religion  to  do  so. 

5.  Accordingly,  amongst  the  more  ancient  Christians  we 
find  versions,  in  all  the  known  and  civilized  parts  of  the  world  ; 
— in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa. — In  Europe,  the  Latin  ; — in 


1  See  Masclef,  Pref.  to  Samar.  Gram. 

2  "  The  Greek  version  being  confess 
edly  most  ancient,"  &c.  see  Kennicott's 
State,  ii.  325. 

3  "  R.  Aquila,  whom  they  call  Onke- 
los."    Brerewood,  Chap.  ix.  p.  36,  men 
tioned  before,  Chap.  vi.  Sect.  7- 

4  Masclef,  vol.  n.  beginning  of  Pre 
face  to  Chaldee  Grammar.    Yet  Walton 


quoted  in  Kennicott's  State,  &c.  vol.  11. 
p.  168. 

6  Something  should  be  said  of  the 
Jerusalem  Targum,  and  the  other  Jona 
than,  on  the  Law.  Walton's  Prolego 
mena — Preface  to  the  Chaldee,  &c.  Lex 
icon  of  Buxtorf,  jun. 

It  should  also  be  remarked,  that  Law, 
Prophets,  and  Hagiographa,  compre- 


calls  them  versions.  hend  the  whole  Bible  ;  though  this  will 

5  Simon  de  Var.  edit.  Bibl.  Cap.  13. —  I   occur  Book  iv.  on  Art.  6.  sect.  9. 


I.  ix.  6,  7-]       VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACRED    WRITINGS. 


39 


I.  Asia  (not  to  mention  the  Greek  any  more)  the  Syriac,  Arme 
nian,  Arabic,  Persic  ; — in  Africa,  the  JEthiopic  and  the  Cop 
tic This  is  only  an  enumeration ;  but  we  may  observe,  that 

what  is  now  called  Abyssinia  was  the  7  Christian  ^Ethiopia,  and 
jEgypt  aia  KoTTToV)  so  that  the  Coptic  means  the  ^Egyptian. 
They  speak  Arabic  in  Egypt  now,  but  the  vulgar  tongue  of 
the  ancient  ^Egyptians,  before  the  incursions  of  the  Saracens, 
was  called  Coptic ;  and  the  Christians  in  ^Egypt  are  still  called 
Kophts8,  Copti;  and  are  able  to  keep  a  settlement  at  or  near 
Coptus,  or  Coptos,  in  ^Egypt. 

6.  Amongst  the  more  modern  Christians  also,  there  have 
been  many  versions  of  the  Scriptures.  Russian,  French,  Ger 
man,  Dutch,  Sclavonian,  (a  general  language)  &c.  which  we 
may  see  mentioned  in  Calmet*s  Dictionary,  under  Version— 
56  but,  of  all  modern  versions,  we  are  most  concerned  with  our 
own. — The  first  English  version  was  Wickliffe's  published  (in 

manuscript)  in  1383,  scarcely  legible  now There  is  also  the 

English  Bible  of  Coverdale,  printed  in  15359 There  was  one 

in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time ;  (London,  1568,)  and,  not  to  be 
too  10  particular,  that  English  version,  which  we  now  use,  was 
made  in  the  time  of  King  James  I.  by  Andrews,  Bishop  of 
Winchester,  and  forty-six  others,  each  of  whom11  undertook  his 
share,  and  laboured  with  great  assiduity  and  attention. 

7-  The  utility  of  some  ancient  versions  has  been  already 
hinted  at:  ancient  versions  are  instead  of  originals; — when 
original  MSS.  are  lost,  versions  enable  us  to  know  what  they 
contained.  Kennicott  says,  ancient  versions  "  afford  much 
more  plentiful  12 assistance"  than  MSS. ; — I  suppose,  because 
they  are  more  ancient  than  any  MSS.  we  possess ;  and  they 
help  us,  both  as  to  the  meaning  of  very  old  lost  MSS.,  and 
as  to  expressions  : — in  his  researches  and  collations,  the  worth 
of  versions  increased  upon  him  greatly.  "  In  those  MSS.," 


7  See  Cellarius,  ^Ethiopia:  did  Can- 
dace  forward  Christianity  in  ^Ethiopia  ? 
or  her  minister  ? 

8  Pococke's  Travels,  vol.  i.  Contents, 
&c.     The  Gospel  was  preached  early  in 
TEgypt :  tradition,  says,  by  St.  Mark ; 
and  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  is  held 
successor  to  St.  Mark  there,  as  the  Pope 
is  to  St.  Peter  at  Rome.— The  Christian 
Liturgy  is  in  Coptic  now,  but  the  priests 
understand  little  of  it ;  get  prayers  by 
heart,  and  pray  without  understanding. 


9  Kenn.  State,  i.  39. 

10  There  is  a  list  of  English  editions  of 
the  Bible  in  Le  Long's  Bibliotheca,  8vo. 
vol.  ii.  p.  584.    And,  I  think,  in  Calmet 
under  Bible. — Moreover,  Johnson's  His 
torical  Account  of  Engl.   Translations, 
Ainsworth's  Pentateuch,  &c.  the  Geneva 
Bible,  and  Rhemish   Testament,   seem 
worth  mentioning. 

11  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans,  In 
dex,  Bible. 

13  State,  i.  271. 


40 


VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACEED    WRITINGS.          [I.  ix.  8. 


says  he,  "which  I  at  first  discovered,  I  soon  met  with  several  I. 
readings,  entirely  different  from  the  printed  Hebrew  copies ; 
and  exactly  agreeing  with  the  Greek,  Syriac,  and  other  ancient 
versions."  Instances  are  to  be  found  by  his  indexes,  in  his 
State  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  of  readings  confirmed  by  ancient 
versions. 

As  to  ^particular  versions,  there  is  difficulty,  and  there    5' 

may  be   dispute The   Syriac  has   been   of  great   use,   and 

every  one  wishes  to  have  it  on  his  side;  yet  it  has  its  im 
perfections.  The  eastern  Christians  value  it  highly2,  and  say, 
it  was  made  in  the  first  century ;  its  advocates,  however,  dis 
tinguish  between  a  very  old  literal  Syriac  version,  and  one 
done  more  lately3  in  the  sixth  century,  not  yet  printed;  they 
also,  in  commending  the  old  one,  except  some  parts  done 
later  than  the  rest,  and  done  by  some  inferior  linguist ;  but 
Archdeacon  Travis,  in  his  5th  letter  to  Mr.  Gibbon,  mentions 
some  material  omissions  in  the  whole  taken  together,  and  re 
fers  to  Beza  for  more. 

The  JEthiopic,  Coptic,  Armenian,  require  too  much  ori 
ental  learning,  and  indeed  are  too  little  understood,  for  us  to 
consider  them  at  present.  Of  the  Arabic  version  we  may  say, 
that,  as  Arabic  is  the  language  which  is  generally  used  in  the 
dominions  of  the  Grand  Signor,  and  which  has  superseded 
the  Coptic,  it  is  useful  to  his  Christian  subjects,  but  it  should 
be  conceived  as  additional,  and  as  made  since  the  time4  of  Ma 
homet  :  it  is  used  witfi  other  eastern  versions. — Whoever 
wishes,  at  any  time,  to  enter  farther  into  this  part  of  litera 
ture,  may  consult  Simons  History  of  the  Versions,  which  is 
far  from  being  written  in  a  dull  manner;  and  he  will  find 
Bengelius  solid,  clear,  and  intelligent. 

8.  The  Latin  versions  have  been  most  used  in  Europe, 
and  have  been  called  authentic  by  the  church5  of  Rome ;  they 
are  in  some  sense  set  above  the  Greek  by  6  Hardouin,  and 
have  had  many  copies,  in  other  languages,  corrected  in  order 
to  suit  them. — But  a  distinction  should  be  made,  we  are  told, 
between  the  old  Latin,  before  Jerom,  and  that  made  by  him7. 


1  Versions  may  shew  what  books  were 
anciently  thought  Canonical.  Jer.  Jones 
uses  this  argument. 

2  Wotton's  Misna,  Pref.  p.  xix.     See 
Jeremiah  Jones.     Richardson's  Canon. 

3  J.  D.  Michaelis,  4to.  Sect.  52. 

4  Ibid.  54. 


6  See    Council  of   Trent,    Session  4. 
Decretum  de  editione  et  usu  Sacrorum 
Librorum. 

"  J.  D.  Michaelis.  Sect.  (54.  quarto. 

7  "  The  common  opinion  is  that  there 
were  several  Latin  versions  before  Jerom, 
but  one  more  eminent  than  the  rest,  call- 


.08 


I.  ix.  8.]          VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACRED    WRITINGS. 


About  the  time  of  Christ,  the  Latin  language  was  sup 
planting  the  Greek  as  a  general  language,  and  it  soon  might 
be  called  the  general  language  of  the  tvestern  church.  Indeed 
it  was  natural,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  Roman  language 
should  spread  in  the  lloman  provinces,  especially  as  law-pro 
cesses  were  carried  on  in  Latin.  But  independently  of  this, 
Latin  Scriptures  must  have  been  wanted ;  certainly,  as  was 
before  observed,  Hellenistic  Greek  was  understood  by  most 
Jews,  and  we  know  the  more  polite  Romans  studied  pure 
Greek ;  but  yet  many  Christian  converts  must  want  Latin 
Scriptures,  and  those  chiefly,  who  knew  Latin  not  as  a  learned, 
but  as  a  vernacular  language ;  that  is,  who  had  learnt  it  not 
by  writing,  but  speaking;  not  by  rules  of  grammar,  but  by 
the  ear.  Now  conceive  a  Latin  version  to  be  made  for  such 
persons,  and  perhaps  by  such,  and  those  Jews, — with  great 
care,  nicety,  and  judgment,  and  you  will  have  probably  a 
tolerably  just  idea  of  the  original  vulgate  or  Old  Italic  ver 
sion It  might  be  the  produce  of  the  first  century It 

would,  of  course,  contain  expressions  lower  and  more  familiar, 
than  were  to  be  found  in  classic  authors,  but  such  as  were 
used  in  conversation,  at  least  of  the  ordinary  people,  Syria- 
isms;  and  would  not  always  be  strict  in  point  of  8 grammar. — . 
It  would,  moreover,  be  very  literal. — We  are  told,  that  there 
is  no  MS.  of  the  old  Italic  extant ;  that  some  parts  of  this 
version  are  printed  by  Martianay ;  (St.  Matthew  and  St. 
James)  ;  and  that  Nobilius  has  collected  some  parts  of  it  out 
of  the  ancient  Fathers;  (Chambers — Bible,  or  Vulgate);  and 
that  some  of  the  old  Roman  liturgies  contain  expressions  from 
it,  (Chambers)  ; — also  that  some  Greek  MSS.  have  this  ver 
sion  annexed ;  the  Cambridge  for  one,  but  yet  I  do  not  expect 
to  see  it  exactly  answer  the  above  description,  in  all  parti 
culars  :  like  the  antiquarian's  shield,  I  fear  we  shall  find  it 
scoured,  till  the  principal  good  of  it,  as  a  piece  of  antiquity, 
is  lost ;  till  it  is  incapable  of  confirming  or  disproving  any 
readings  of  the  MSS.  we  now  wish  to  study.  We  know  of 
no  version,  which  has  been  so  often  altered,  reformed,  cor 
rupted,  (what  you  please)  as  the  Latin  :  but,  if  we  get  an 
idea  of  two  sorts,  we  can  speak  and  read  of  the  mixtures  of 
them,  tolerably. 


ed  Italic." — Waterland  on  the  Athan. 
Creed,  p.  113,  2d  edit — where,  or  p.  112, 
four  sorts  of  Latin  Psalters  are  mentioned, 


Italic,  Roman,  Galilean,  and   Hebraic. 
8  For  instances,  see  Michaelis,  quarto, 
Sect.  01,  62,  from  Martianay. 


VERSIONS    OF    THE    SACRED    WRITINGS.    [I.  ix.  9,  10. 


I  take  the  difference  between  the  old  Italic  and  Jeroins  I. 
Latin  version,  to  resemble  the  difference  between  vulgar 
tongue,  spoken,  and  general  classical  language,  written  :  — 
however,  Jerom's  main  design,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  works, 
was  to  correct  the  version  of  the  LXX.,  and  reduce  the 
Latin  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  standard  of  the  original 

Greek This   being  the  case,   Jerorns   Latin    version   shews 

us  what  were  (in  his  judgment)  the  best  readings  in  his  time. 
Dr.  Bentley  did  not  think  our  present  Greek  Testament  so 
pure  as  it  might  be  made,  by  the  help  of  MSS.  and  Jerom's 
version :  and  he  published  proposals  for  a  new  edition ;  but 
he  was  opposed,  particularly  by  Dr.  Middleton,  and  never 
executed  his  design  :  the  proposals  are  in  the  Biographia  Bri-  go 
tannica — under  Bentley :  and  may  hereafter  be  useful. 

9-  Versions  are  very  commonly  made  from  other  ver 
sions  ;  and  sometimes  it  may  be  doubtful  from  what  a  version 
is  made.  Versions  have  been  made  from  the  LXX.1,  the 

Syriac2,  and  the  Latin3 Sometimes,  a  version  seems  odd  in 

some  places,   when  the  strangeness  will  go  off  by  comparing 

it  with  both  Greek  and  Latin4 A  second  version  may  prove 

the  right  reading  of  a  passage  in  the  first,  in  the  same  way 

as  the  first  proves  with  regard  to  the  original In  reckoning 

the  authorities,  which  favour  a  reading  in  the  original,  a  ver 
sion  and  all  versions  taken  from  it,  must  be  reckoned  but 
as  one. 

10.  A  Polyglott  gives  us  the  principal  versions  at  one 
view,  in  the  different  columns  of  one  page.  Polvglotts  are 
magnificent  works.  I  shall  only  mention  two  :  that  finished 
at  Complutum  (Alcala)  in  Spain  in  1514,  which  is  said  to 
have  cost  that  great  statesman,  Cardinal  Ximenes5,  50,000  du 
cats; — and  that  made  by  Brian  Walton,  Bishop  of  Chester, 
who  died  in  l66l,  sometimes  called  the  London  Polyglott,  or 
the  English,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Paris  Polyglott6. 

The  Complutensian  Polyglott  is  sometimes  called  the 
Complutensian  Edition,  or  the  Edition  of  Alcala:  it  is  in  six 
volumes  folio :  it  contains  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew, 
Chaldee,  Greek,  and  Latin:  the  New,  in  Greek  and  Latin; 
the  Greek  type  was  made  on  purpose:  the  book  is  printed 
from  the  best  MSS.,  which  the  vast  influence  of  Ximenes 


1  Pearson's  Pref.  to  LXX.  p.  (J. 

2  Travis's  Letters,  4to.  p.  8!J. 


Michael  is. 


Michaelis. 


5  Gibbon's  History,  vol.  in.  p.  545. 

6  Le  Long  gives  an  account  of  these ; 
and  Calmet  at  the  end  of  his  Dictionary, 


I.  ix.  ll.J       VERSIONS   OF    THE    SACRED    WRITINGS. 


43 


I.   could  procure;   the  chief  of  them  were  sent  from  the  Vatican. 

61  Forty-two  men  were  employed  fifteen  years  in  completing  it ; 
and,  though  he  was  a  general,  as  well  as  statesman,  and  car 
dinal,  he  did  a  great  deal  himself. 

Walton's  Polyglott  is  also  in  six  volumes  folio:  contain 
ing  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  Samaritan  (as  far  as  it 
goes),  Syriac,  Chaldee,  in  the  Greek  of  the  LXX.,  in  the 
Vulgate  Latin,  and  Arabic;  with  Latin  translations,  I  think, 
to  all  except  the  vulgate;  the  Latin  of  the  Hebrew  is  put 
over  it,  word  over  word ; — The  New  Testament  is  in  Greek, 

Latin,  Syriac,  ^Ethiopic,  Arabic,  and  Persic The  French 

reckon  Walton's  only  an  improvement,  or  good  edition,  of  Le 
Jay's.  —  The  Prolegomena  to  Walton's  make  a  good  small 
volume  of  themselves ;  I  wish  they  were  published  in  8vo.  in 
England,  as  they  have  been  abroad7. 

What  has  been  said  will  be  sufficient  to  shew  the  man 
ner  in  which  versions  are  made  evidence  for  determining  the 
genuineness  of  any  part  of  the  sacred  text. 

11.  It  has  now  been  asked,  for  some  time,  whether  we 
ought  not  to  have  a  new  version  of  the  Scriptures  into  our 
own  language.  Dr.  Kennicott  thinks8  the  proper  time  not  far 
off;  and,  as  I  remember,  Dr.  Rutherforth,  who  opposed  him 
in  some  things,  agreed  with  him  in  this ;  and  gave  this  Uni 
versity  his  concurring  opinion,  in  his  Latin  sermons :  but  we 
seem  to  me  scarcely  to  be  sufficiently  prepared  for  such  a 

62  work  at  present.     Dr.  Kennicott  grounds  his  opinion  on  the 
Collations  published  by  him ;  but,   I   should   think,  no   one 
man  can  collate  with  sufficient  exactness  to  be  depended  upon  ; 
besides  that,  he  did  not  make  nearly  all  the  collations  him 
self,    which    he   published:    the   same    work    should   be   gone 
through  again,  with  Dr.  Kennicott's  collations  : — whoever  went 
through  it  would  make  many  new  remarks;  and,  where  they 
only  confirmed  what  he  had  done,  they  would  be  of  great  use. 
Who  durst  adopt  implicitly  all  the  remarks  he  makes  ?  even 
though  no  particular  objection  appeared  ?     If  persons  of  learn 
ing  were  appointed  to  take   each  a  small  part  of  the  Scrip 
tures,  to  examine  all  the  readings,  propose  new  senses  for  the 


7  I  have  a  small  volume  12mo.  printed 
in  London  1G55 —  (2d  edit.)  called  an 
Introduction  to  the  Oriental  Languages, 
nine  in  number,  with  a  Preface  by  Wal 
ton,  filling  half  the  volume.  This  Pre 


face  is  dated  London,  Oct.  1,  1(»54 :  it 
seems  to  have  been  preparatory  to  the 
publication  of  his  Polyglott. 

8  State,  i.  p.  565,  and  conclusion  of  his 
Annual  Accounts. 


44 


INTERPRETING    OF    SCRIPTURE. 


[I.  X.   1. 


world  to  judge  of,  a  new   translation  might  go  on  gradually   I. 
and  safely  ;  the  legislature  might  employ  proper  persons  ;   and 
at  last  collect  the  parts,  and  set  the  seal  of  public  authority. 

I  fear  also,  there  is  scarcely  a  sufficient  fund  of  sacred 
literature  amongst  us,  just  at  present ;  we  are  apt  to  view 
things  superficially ; — nor  perhaps  is  there  a  zeal  for  religion 
sufficiently  strong  and  steady.  The  17th  century  was  more 
learned  than  the  present. 

It  is  not  enough,  that  new  translators  are  likely  to  render 
some  parts  better  than  they  were  before ;  the  question  is, 
whether  upon  the  whole  they  are  like  to  produce  a  better 
translation. — Yet  all  parts  must  be  submitted  to  their  discre 
tion.  From  the  attempts,  which  I  have1  seen,  at  new  English 
translations,  though  perhaps  each  may  hit  off  some  improve 
ments,  I  profess  myself  desirous  at  present  to  continue  the  use 
of  our  present  Bibles ;  especially  as  they  are  the  established 
language  of  Christian  piety ;  and  associated  with  religious 
sentiments.  How  many  people  have  Psalms  and  chapters 
by  heart !  the  periods  are  become  congenial  to  them  ; — the  63 
sound  of  them  is  the  sound  of  religion  itself2. 


CHAPTER    X. 

OF   INTERPRETING   EXPRESSIONS    OF    SCRIPTURE    BY    ENTERING 

INTO    THE     CIRCUMSTANCES    OF    THOSE,    TO    WHOM 

THEY    WERE    IMMEDIATELY    ADDRESSED. 

1.  LET  us  now  suppose  all  the  words  of  Scripture  fixed 
and  agreed  upon:  still,  something  more  than  lexicons  and 
grammars  is  necessary  to  our  attaining  the  true  and  full  sense 
of  them.  And  that  is,  putting  ourselves  in  the  place  of  those 
who  spoke,  or  heard;  or,  what  amounts  to  the  same,  inter- 


1  Dr  Campbell's,  Mr  Wakefield's,  &c. 

2  1790.  If  any  one  thinks,  that  the  Aca 
demical  scholar  would  have  borne  more 
learning,    relative   to    the    language    of 
Scripture,  than  is  given  him  in  the  five 
preceding  chapters,  such  an  one  should 
observe,  in  the  Advertisement  prefixed  to 
the  Heads  of  Lectures,  how  much  of  Bp. 
Pearson's  work  on  the  Creed  was  read  in 


every  course ;  and  then  it  would  occur,  that 
many  discussions  on  languages,  &c.  must 
be  wanted  in  order  to  make  the  notes  in 
telligible,  and  to  give  them  their  due 
weight.— Any  student  may  now  gain  bet 
ter  instruction  than  I  could  have  given 
him,  from  31r.  Marsh's  translation  of  the 
4th  edition  of  Michaelis's  Lectures,  with 
learned  notes. 


I.  X.    1.]  INTERPRETING    OF    SCRIPTURE.  45 

I.  preting  words  of  Scripture  as  we  should  interpret  like  ivords 
in  coirtmon  life.  Some  parts  of  Scripture  are  indeed  lofty  and 
sublime,  and  remote  from  common  life;  but  I  do  not  imagine, 
that  these  have  occasioned  either  so  much  controversy,  or  so 
much  anxiety  of  mind,  as  the  more  familiar  parts ;  plain  nar 
rations,  dialogues,  letters ;  all  expressions  in  which  we  must 
endeavour  to  understand,  as  we  should  understand  similar 

expressions  in  similar  compositions I  doubt  not  but  this  may 

seem  an  easy  matter  to  some,  on  the  first  mention ;  but  it  is 
attended  with  considerable  difficulties.  At  this  day,  it  requires 
great  knowledge,  and  great  steadiness  of  attention.  Some 
persons  would  be  apt  to  say,  'If  I  may  but  interpret  Scripture 
as  I  do  ordinary  expressions,  that  is  all  I  wish  for ;  it  is  no 
pain  or  trouble  to  me  to  understand  what  common  people  say 
to  me ;  I  do  it  without  trying  to  do  it.'  This  is  true ; 
popular  language  seems  to  express  what  it  means,  to  those 

5  who  are  rightly  circumstanced :  but  why  does  this  happen  ? 
because  each  man  in  such  case  knows  familiarly  and  habitu 
ally,  not  only  what  the  words  express,  but  what  they  imply : 
for  sometimes,  they  imply  more  than  they  express ;  sometimes, 
express  more  than  they  imply ;  but  habit  makes  all  this  easy 
to  those  who  are  exactly  in  the  right  circumstances.  Take 
a  man,  who  is  ever  so  little  out  of  the  right  circumstances, 
let  him  come  from  a  different  county,  let  him  be  of  a 
different  occupation,  and  he  immediately  wants  some  explana 
tory  information ;  sometimes,  he  will  see  too  little  in  the 
words  used  to  him;  and  sometimes  too  much.  Not  that  he, 
who  is  in  the  right  circumstances,  understands  rightly,  without 
numberless  acts  of  the  mind;  only  he  is  not  conscious  of 
them ;  any  more  than  he  is  of  the  actions  of  the  muscles  of 
his  eyes,  when  he  looks  at  objects  at  different  distances.- — 
Hence,  if  one/a?-  removed  from  the  right  circumstances,  wants 
to  form  a  judgment  how  he  should  understand  expressions  if 
he  could  put  himself  in  those  right  circumstances,  he  must 
have  to  estimate,  first,  what  knowledge  the  person  rightly 
situated  has,  which  he  has  not ; — secondly,  what  are  those  acts 
of  the  mind,  which  such  person  performs  habitually  when  he 
takes  the  words  he  hears  rightly ;  so  that  they  really  are 
intended  to  imply  neither  more  nor  less  than  he  conceives 
them  to  imply. — This  is  what  we  should  do,  if  possible,  with 
the  words  of  Scripture ;  as  we  are  far  removed  from  the 
circumstances  of  those  for  whom  they  were  calculated,  we 


46  INTERPRETING    OF    SCRIPTURE.          [I.  X.  2 4. 

should  see  what  knowledge  the  persons,  rightly  circumstanced    I. 
for  understanding   them,  had,  which   we  have    not ;  and   we 
should  analyse  those  acts  of  the  mind,  by  which   they  were 
able,  habitually,  without  being  conscious  of  it,  to  give  them 
precisely  that  degree  of  meaning  which  they  were  intended  to 
convey.       I   do   not   conceive  that  we  can   do  this   perfectly,    66 
but  we  may  approach  towards   it ;   it  is  the  end  at  which  we 
ought  to  aim. 

The  way  to  approach  as  near  as  possible  seems  to  be  this : 
to  observe  first  how,  in  our  own  common  life,  words  imply 
more  or  less  than  they  express ;  and  then  apply  our  observa 
tions  to  Scripture ; — using  them  first  to  illustrate  some  plainer 
cases,  in  order  to  get  them,  at  length,  applied  to  all  cases 
whatever. — This  is  a  general  view  of  the  subject  before  us. 

2.  If  we  attend  to  the  force  of  expressions  used  in  com 
mon  life,   we   see   that  expressions  imply  customs ;   and  that 
common  popular  language  alludes  to  these  customs  perpetu 
ally  :    under   customs   may   be   included   customary   notions  : 
here  words  mean  more  than  they  express. 

3.  Any  one,  who  was  not  convinced  of  this,  might  try 
to  explain  a  familiar  letter  or  conversation  in  his  own  language 
to  a  foreigner.      He  would   find,  that  he  had  many  long  and 
difficult  explanations  to  make ;   and,  when  they  were  made,  the 
foreigner  would  not  still  be  exactly  in  the  place  of  a  native, 
in  understanding  the  letter  or  conversation.      Every  one  may 
conceive  this  in  some  degree;   perhaps  no  one,  perfectly,  who 
has  not  tried  the  experiment :  perhaps  no  one  who  has. 

4.  Many  of  us  may  have  tried  to  read  of  the  things  of 
common  life  in  dead  languages ;  and,  when  we  have  attempted 
to  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  those  for  whom  they  were 
immediately  intended,   in    what  researches  have  we  been   en 
gaged  !      Graevius  in  twelve  folio  volumes,  and  Gronovius  in 
thirteen,  have  told  us  many  things  Roman  and  Grecian ;   and 
given  us  many  descriptions,  and  many  opinions  on  this  side 
and  that ;   but  still   we  fall  far  short  of  the  knowledge  which    67 
a  plain  citizen  1   of  Rome  or  Athens  would  have,  without  ever 
suspecting  that  he  had  any  knowledge  at  all :   we  fall  far  short 

1  Suppose  the  following  familiar  letter   |  Cambridge,  April  5,1780. 

to  be  explained  to  a  Chine.se  ;  or  to  any  Sir, 


people  1800  years  hence;  our  language 
being  supposed  to  be  then  a  dead  lan 
guage  :_ 


On  Thursday,  I  was  at  the  As 
sizes  for  this  County  ,•  as  only  one  felon 
was  to  be  tried,  and  he  likely  to  be  only 


I.  X.   5,  6.]  INTERPRETING    OF    SCRIPTURE.  47 

I.  of  understanding  those  allusions,  which  such  an  one  would 
make  in  every  thing  he  said ;  without  any  consciousness  that 
he  was  alluding  to  any  thing ;  and  would  understand,  without 
being  aware,  that  the  words  meant  more  than  they  expressed. 

5.  In  such  expressions  as  have  been  hitherto  considered, 
words  imply  more  than  they  express ;   but  some  words  imply 

6S  less : — as  is  the  case  when  we  make  declarations,  (including 
agreements,  promises,  threats,  and  narrations)  ;  or  give  direc 
tions  to  those  who  are  to  act  in  our  stead.  We  say,  "I  will 
undoubtedly  be  with  you  at  the  time  appointed  ;" — yet  no  one 
understands  that  to  mean,  I  will  be  with  you,  though  I 
break  a  limb,  though  my  nearest  relation  dies,  in  the  mean 
time :  no ;  any  thing  is  allowed  as  an  excuse,  which  we 
should  have  specified,  had  it  occurred  to  us  as  likely  to 
happen. 

6.  Words  also  imply  less  than  they  express,  when  we 
give  directions  to  others.      Any  one,  who  reflects,  will  per 
ceive  how  difficult  it  is  to  give  directions  to  servants,  whicli 
shall  be  in  all  cases  executed  literally.     A  servant  sees  this, 
and  ventures  to  depart  from  the  literal  sense  of  his  master's 
commands ;   he  is  seldom  commended  if  he  does  right ;   '  how 
could  you  have  done  otherwise?'  is  his  only  compliment;   and 
he  is  unreasonably  blamed,  if  he  happened  to  judge  wrong: 
'what   business  had  you  to   think ?'  it  is  said; — whereas   it 
ought  to  be  said,  in  such  case,  (  why  did  you  not  think  more  ? 
you  would  then  have  seen,  that  I  could  not  intend,  by  what  I 
said,  to  give  you  such  an  advantage ;   or,  I  could  not  mean  to 
throw  upon  you  such  a  piece  of  drudgery.' — 


transported,  I  sate  in  the  Nisi-prius  end 
of  the  Shire-Hall.  The  Jury  were  ig 
norant,  but  followed  the  direction  of  the 
Chief  Baron,  who  sate  as  Judge;  I 
dined  at  two  o'clock  with  the  Sheriff,  as 
his  Chaplain,  at  Trinity  Lodge;  the 
Judge  dined  in  his  coat  and  waistcoat, 
without  his  gown,  or  full-bottom'd  wig. 
A  small  party  adjourned  to  the  Rose  ; 
we  had  a  round  of  toasts,  and  drank  all 
the  leading  members  of  both  Houses; 
Whigs  and  Tories.  The  Punch  and 
Tobacco  being  too  much  for  me,  I  went 
into  the  Bar,  but  some  people  being  there 
engaged  with  Whist  and  Backgammon,  I 
went  into  the  Balcony,  and  got  a  little 
Porter :  and  below  in  the  Market-place 
I  saw  a  Mob,  in  which  a  Brazier's  Ap 


prentice  got  so  hurt,  that  some  shillings 
were  gathered  for  him,  and  he  was  sent 
to  the  Hospital:  what  enraged  them  was, 
fancying  they  had  found  part  of  a  Press- 
gang  ;  so  they  pulled  oft'  their  hats,  huz 
za? 'd,  and  cried  out  "  Wilkes  and  Li 
berty!1''  a  Quaker  passed  by,  but  he 
would  as  soon  have  put  on  a  Sivord,  as 
have  taken  off'  his  Hat;  tho'  he  was 
offered  plenty  of  Roast ,  Beef  and  PI  urn - 

pudding But  the  Post  is  just  going 

out,  so  I  must,  in  haste, 

subscribe  myself  your 

obedient  Servant, 

J.  H. 

Fifty-four  Dissertations  might  be  made 
on  this  letter; — such  as  those  of  Gra?- 
vius  or  Gronovius. 


48  INTERPRETING    OF    SCRIPTURE.  [I.  X.   7,  8 

7-  By  pursuing  this  train,  and  keeping  the  subject  in  our  I. 
thoughts  amidst  the  common  occurrences  of  life,  we  may  come 
to  attain  a  pretty  good  idea,  how,  in  our  own  common  dis 
course,  words  sometimes  imply  more  than  they  express,  and 
sometimes  less :  let  us  now  apply  our  observations  to  some 
plainer  cases  in  Scripture. 

8.  First,  as  to  the  allusions  contained  in  scriptural 
language : — every  allusion  is  a  taking  for  granted,  that  the 
reader,  or  person  addressed,  knows  something  so  well  that  it 
need  not  be  specified  ;  now  it  is  impossible  we  should  under 
stand  what  any  one  says  or  writes,  unless  we  know  those  69 
things  which  he  takes  it  for  granted  we  know.  Hence,  to 
understand  the  language  of  Scripture,  as  far  as  concerns  the 
allusions  it  contains,  is  to  understand  whatever  was  familiar  to 
those  to  whom  the  several  parts  of  Scripture  were  originally 
addressed : — now  this,  after  such  an  interval,  is  to  understand 
antiquities :  which  word  may,  in  a  large  sense  include  history, 
and  its  common  appendages. 

Antiquities  are  either  natural  or  artificial;  which  latter 
may  be  public  or  private: — As  to  natural  antiquities,  we 
ought  to  have  some  knowledge  of  the  animals  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  and  of  the  vegetables ;  our  Saviour  alludes  to  the 
lilies,  and  to  vineyards ;  and  makes  use  of  the  things  com 
monly  known  with  regard  to  figs. — He  also  alludes  to  local 
rules  about  the  weather. 

Artificial  antiquities  of  a  public  nature,  which  may  be 
wanted,  are  those  concerning  the  divisions  of  time,  for  under 
standing  the  passovers,  and  the  hours  of  the  day.  Those 
concerning  coins,  laws,  tribunals1,  punishments;  rules  of 
adoption  and  redemption. — And  we  might  mention  with  pro- 
priety,  the  religious  ceremonies  of  the  Jews,  as  far  as  they  are 
not  found  in  Scripture ;  as  well  as  the  Pagan  and  Samaritan 
rites. 

Antiquities  of  a  private  nature  may  relate  to  the  forms  of 
buildings,  to  apparel2,  to  funerals,  modes  of  travelling,  Sic. ; 
the  allusions  made  by  St.  Paul  in  particular,  are  well  described 
by  Dr.  Powell,  in  his  13th  discourse. 

The  manner  of  acquiring  such  knowledge  of  antiquities 
may  be,  by  reading  travels,  in  which  there  is  this  advantage, 
that,  in  the  east,  there  is  less  difference  between  ancient  and 

modern  customs,  than  in  the  west Views  of  ruins,  such  as 

1  See  Taylor  on  the  Romans;  Key,  Art.  .'{20.  -  Wedding  garment. 


I.  X.   8.]  INTERPRETING    OF    SCRIPTURE.  49 

I.  those  of  Palmyra,  may  afford  help.  The  antiquities  published 
70  at  Venice  in  3this  century  under  Ugolino  are  so  voluminous, 
that  one  would  be  unwilling  to  mention  them,  were  it  not  that 
any  parts  of  the  work  may  be  perused  independently  of  the 
rest. — Bochart  should  be  consulted.  Macknighfs  prelimi 
nary  observations  are  easily  4read. 

Some  knowledge  of  history  is  necessary  for  us,  in  order  to 
have  the  right  ideas  about  the  Herods,  the  authority  of  Pilate, 
and  the  rulers  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
paying  of  tribute.  The  use  of  prophecies  is  not  to  be  under 
stood,  except  we  can  compare  a  prediction  with  the  events 
which  fulfil  it.  We  should  be  able  to  compare  sacred  history 
with  profane;  and  trace  out  the  history  between  the  latest 
events  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  earliest  of  the  New. 
Many  books  may  be  consulted  on  this  matter  :  Dean  Prideaux 
is  famous  for  connecting  the  histories  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments : — perhaps  no  one  book  is  preferable  to  Collier's 
Sacred  Interpreter  :  he  refers  to  others5. 

History  cannot  be  studied  without  Geography  and  Chro 
nology  ;  but  moreover,  Geography  is  wanted  for  descriptions 
of  travels  and  voyages,  things  relating  to  the  lakes  and  rivers, 
peculiarities  of  climate ;  and  it  may  be  studied  in  Bochart, 
Sanson,  Cellarius,  Wells,  &c. — Chronology  teaches  us  the 
order  of  events  in  one  place,  and  their  coincidence  in  different 
places :  we  want  it,  to  shew  us  the  state  of  the  world  at  the 
coming  of  Christ ;  to  shew  the  fulness  of  time ;  and  to  con 
nect  the  dispensations  of  grace  with  the  government  of  the 
71  world.  Blair's  Tables  are  useful,  and  Du  Fresnoy :  Mack- 
night's  Chronological  Dissertations,  prefixed  to  his  Harmony, 
may  inform  us  in  some  points ;  and  our  veneration  for  Sir 
Isaac  Newton  may  induce  us  to  see  how  he  applies  his  wonder 
ful  abilities  to  this  part  of  science. 

A  very  great  number  of  allusions  are  made  in  the  sacred 
writings  to  controverted  opinions ;  Pagan,  Jewish,  and  Chris 
tian  ;  to  Rabbinical  traditions,  Jewish  sects,  Pharisees,  Saddu- 
cees,  Essenes : — to  the  high  Jewish  notions  of  election  ;  to 
heathen  sects  of  philosophers,  Stoics,  Epicureans ;  to  oriental 


1  34  Vols the  first  published  in  1744 : 

the  last  in  1769. 

4  Calmet,  at  the  end  of  his  Dictionary, 
has  a  Bibliotheca  ;  in  which  he  gives  an 
account  of  all  sorts  of  books  which  tend 

VOL.  I. 


to    illustrate  the    Scriptures.    Le  Long 
does  the  same  in  his  Bibliotheca. 

5  The  first  part  of  Lardner's  Credi 
bility  should  by  all  means  be  mention 
ed. 


50 


INTERPRETING    OF     SCRIPTURE.  [I.  X.   9,  10. 


philosophy ;   to  mixture  of  Jewish  and  heathen  notions  held   I. 
by  the  Samaritans;  to  the  earliest  Christian  heresies1. 

Such  are  the  allusions  of  Scripture,  and  such  is  the  know 
ledge  required  to  understand  and  taste  the  writings,  which 
contain  them : — so  far  the  words  of  Scripture  imply  more 
than  they  express2. 

9.  In  the  declarations  of  Scripture,  the  words  imply  less 
than  they  express :  they  are  to  be  limited  and  restrained. 
Declarations  include  agreements,  promises,  threats,  narrations, 
accounting  for  events,  &c. — Things  are  said  to  be  impossible, 
which  are  only  so  improbable  that  the  mind  feels  no  expectation 
of  their  happening:  in  common  life  we  speak  from  our  feelings: 
"  it  must  needs  be,"  means,  that  the  mind,  estimating  probabili 
ties,  feels  no  doubt  of  such  an  event.  "God  is  no  respecter  of 
persons,"  &c.  Acts  x.  32.  has  been  generally  thought  an  uni 
versal  proposition ;  but  Bishop  Sherlock  shews  that  it  is  not,  72 

in  his  12th  discourse  of  vol.  1st Indeed,  St.  Paul  mentions 

principles  on  which  we  may  build  our  limitations :  "  I  speak 
after  the  manner  of  men."  (Rom.  vi.  19.) — "  It  is  manifest  that 
he  is  excepted."  (l  Cor.  xv.  27.) — Dr.  Powell'3  closes  his  7th 
discourse  with  a  good  sentence  to  our  purpose ;  and  I  am 
inclined  to  add,  that  the  difficulty  of  the  texts  about  God's 
hardening  the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  arises  from  their  not  being 
sufficiently  and  naturally  limited:  God  is  to  be  praised  for  all 
good,  even  for  that  which  arises  out  of  evil ;  and  all  such 
good,  as  well  as  the  evil,  is  to  be,  in  some  indistinct  way, 
considered  as  under  his  government.  Now  the  Jews  received 
good  from  Pharaoh's  evil  conduct;  they  must  thank  God  for 
that  good;  they  must  declare  him  to  be  the  cause  of  it,  in 
some  way  unknown  to  them :  limit  the  sayings  to  their  partial 
views,  to  that  good  which  occasioned  the  sayings,  and  their 
difficulty  will  not  be  great ;  especially  if  we  acquaint  ourselves 
with  the  habit,  which  the  Jews  naturally  had,  under  a  theo 
cracy,  of  referring  every  thing  to  God,  without  exception. 

10.  Lastly,  we  are  to  apply  what  has  been  said  about 
limitations  of  directions  given  for  the  conduct  of  others,  to 
some  of  the  plainer  cases  of  scriptural  precepts.  We  are  di- 


1  Lightfoot's  Hora?,  &c.  were  mention, 
ed  before. 

2  It  is  not  to  be  conceived,  that  any 
thing  like  a  complete  account  should  be 
here  attempted  of  sacred  antiquities,  geo 


graphy,  &c.  however  useful ; — they  make 
a  separate  study ;  we  would  not  here  pro 
duce  the  rules  of  Hebrew  or  Greek 
grammar,  though  wanted  for  understand 
ing  Scripture.  8  Dr.  Powell,  p.  117. 


I.  X.   11.]  INTERPRETING    OF    SCRIPTURE.  51 

I.  rected,  1  Pet.  iv.  9,  to  use  hospitality ;  but,  can  we  suppose, 
that  we  are  not  to  shut  our  doors  against  a  notorious  robber  ? 
. — we  are  directed,  Rom.  xii.  15,  to  "rejoice  with  them  that  do 
rejoice,  and  weep  with  them  that  weep;" — but,  are  we  to 
rejoice  when  fraud  triumphs  over  virtuous  simplicity  ?  Alex 
ander  wept,  because  he  had  no  more  worlds  to  conquer ;  are 
we  to  shed  sympathetic  tears  on  such  an  occasion  ? — Except 
we  "  become  as  little  children"  we  "  shall  not  enter  into  the 

73  kingdom  of  heaven,"  Matt,  xviii.  3 ;   may  we  not  then  be  per 
mitted   to   speak  distinctly,   to    walk   steadily4?    may  we   not 
read,   write,   think?  (compare   1    Cor.  xiii.   11.)     "Look  not 
thou  upon  the  wine,  when  it  is  red,"  says  Solomon :    (Prov. 
xxiii.  31.)     "  Howl,  all  ye  drinkers  of  wine,"  says  the  pro 
phet  Joel,  (i.  5.)  : — it  is  not  clear,  that  these  sayings  might 
not   have  made  a   sect   of  Christian  Rechabites,   had  not   St. 
Paul  advised  5  Timothy  to  drink  no  longer  water,  but  a  little 
wine   for   his  bodily   infirmities ;    yet  the  same  limitation   of 
drinking  moderately,  and  with  a  view  to  health,  might  have 
been  implied,  if  it  had  not  been  expressed6. 

Precepts  may  be  given  by  means  of  praise  or  blame :  but 
here  we  must  limit  the  praise  and  blame  by  the  occasion, 
and  scope  of  the  passage.  Our  Saviour  commended  the  un 
just  steward,  did  he  thereby  favour  injustice?  God  forbid! 
he  favoured  prudence,  and  uniformity  of  conduct :  the  commen 
dation  was  bestowed  on  the  steward,  because  he  had  done 
wisely ;  and  spiritual  prudence  ought  to  keep  pace  with  tem 
poral.  David  was  called  the  man  after  God^s  own  heart ;  does 
scripture  authorize  adultery  and  murder  ?  by  no  means : — 
for  those  crimes  David  was  punished ;  he  was  dear  to  Jehovah, 
because  he  forwarded  the  interests  of  the  pure  religion,  in 
spite  of  all  temptations  to  idolatry  and  superstition  ;  this  was 

74  what  God  had  chiefly  at  heart,  for  the  principle  of  conduct, 
in  the  governors  of  his  chosen  people7. 

11.  Perhaps  some  of  the  instances  here  mentioned  may 
be  thought  needless,  because  no  one  is  likely  to  be  misled 


4  Pour  etre  semblables  a  des  enfans, 
on  les  voyoit  s'abaisser  a  des  petits  jeux, 


et  aftecter  une  simplicite  puerile. — Hist. 

Aaa   A     ,  o-,.      rn,  .     .  ,  .         contradiction:    there  are  many  such  in 

des  Anabap.  p.  2oJ.     This  is  quoted  in 


"  The  Principles  and  Practices  of  Me 
thodists  farther  considered."  Cambr. 
1761,  p.  69,  where  are  several  other  in 
stances  from  the  same  history,  much  to 
the  present  purpose. 


1  Tim.  v.  23. 

Joel  i.  5,  and  1  Tim.  v.  23,  form  a 


Scripture ;  all  arising  from  the  same 
cause,  taking  the  letter,  without  such 
limitations  as  are  implied. 

7  See  Bishop  Porteus's  sermon  on  this 
subject. 

4—2 


52  APPLYING  SCRIPTURE  SAYINGS     [I.  xi.  1,  2. 

in  such  cases; — it  is  true,  that  there  is  the  most  danger  of   I. 
error  where  what  is  implied  is   the  least  evident :  but   these 
instances  seem  more  likely,  than   any  abstract  reasoning,   to 
lead  us  to  a  custom  of  interpreting  all  sayings  of  Scripture 

by   the  circumstances  in  which   they  are  used 1  am  much 

mistaken,  if  such  a  custom  would  not  be  the  means  of  remov 
ing  (not  all  difficulties,  but)  all  disputes  and  dissensions  about 
some  of  those  doctrines  which  are  reckoned  the  most  abstruse 
and  intricate. 


CHAPTER    XL 

OF    APPLYING    SAYINGS    AND    ACTIONS,    RECORDED    IN 
THE    SCRIPTURES,    TO    OURSELVES. 

1.  THIS  chapter  is  allied  to  the  preceding,  inasmuch  as 
they  both  turn  upon  estimating  circumstances  and  situations, 
taking  the  accuracy  of  expressions  for  granted :   we  interpret, 
by   considering  the   circumstances  of  others ;  we   apply,  by 
considering  our  own :  or,  more  strictly  speaking,  by  making 
a  comparison  between  the   circumstances  of  those    to   whom 
Scripture  was  immediately  addressed,  and  our  own.      If  we 
neglect  their  circumstances,  we  shall  do  things  enjoined  only 
by  the  letter  of  Scripture ;   if  we  neglect  our  own,  we  shall  do 
things  which  are  not  enjoined  at  all,  but  barely  mentioned. 

2.  But,  though  there  is  a  connexion  between  the  subjects 
of  this  chapter  and  the  preceding,  they  are  quite  distinct. 

This  chapter  should  go  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
end  of  the  former  is  accomplished ;  the  several  expressions  of 
Scripture  should  be  now  supposed  to  be  rightly  understood  ; 
but  what  is  rightly  understood  may  not  be  rightly  applied. 
Though  we  do  not  mistake  the  sacred  writers,  we  may  mis 
take  ourselves,  and  our  own  real  situations.  Or  we  may,  by 
association  of  ideas,  or  prejudice,  venerate  things  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  as  if  they  were  essential  parts  of  religion,  though 
they  are  wholly  insignificant  in  themselves,  and  are  not  in 
tended  to  be  accounted  otherwise.  A  child,  brought  up  to 
venerate  the  church,  may  venerate  the  joint-stool  that  he  has 
always  seen  there,  though  in  reality  it  makes  no  part  of  the 
sacred  building. 


I.  xi.  3.] 


AND    ACTIONS    TO    OURSELVES. 


53 


I.  In  some  instances,  the  application  of  Scripture  to  our 
selves  may  be  so  evident  as,  at  this  time,  to  require  no  caution 
or  advice ;  or  it  may  be  evident,  that  some  parts  of  Scripture 
are  now  inapplicable:- — as  in  those  cases  where  all  males  are 
ordered  to  worship  at  Jerusalem  three  times  a  year1  ;  and  the 
people  of  God  are  commanded  to  exterminate  some  societies 
of  men,  or  put  to  death  a  large  number  of  those  who  mi 
nistered  in  a  false  religion.  And  yet  the  times  are  not  long 
past  in  which  things  have  been  done  on  the  same  principles 
with  these.  King2  Charles  I.  was  justified  by  his  divines,  by 
precedents  borrowed  from  the  kings  of  Israel:  —  "The  Mo- 
saical  law  was  intended  to  be  established,  as  the  sole  system 
of  English  jurisprudence3." — The  enthusiasts  called  millenna- 
rians,  or  fifth-monarchy '-men ,  claimed  to  be  the  saints  of  God, 
and  to  have  the  dominion4  of  saints.  Nay,  they  went  so  far 
as  to  give  up  their  own  Christian  names,  and  assume  others 
from  Scripture5;  like  the  Manicheans6  of  old. — And  both 
parties,  in  the  times  we  speak  of,  seem  to  have  claimed  a 
right  of  applying,  in  some  degree,  the  injunctions  given  in 
77  barbarous  times,  against  the  worshippers  of  Baal,  to  those 
who  differed  from  them  in  modes  of  Christian  worship7. 

Men,  less  heated  by  enthusiasm  and  party-spirit  than 
these,  seem,  at  different  times,  to  have  erred  in  applying  Scrip 
ture  to  their  own  cases : — but,  before  we  mention  their  no 
tions,  let  us  see  in  general  what  we  aim  to  establish. 

3.  Instead  of  adopting  the  sayings  and  actions  recorded 
in  Scripture,  implicitly  and  absolutely,  we  ought  to  rea 
son  in  some  such  manner  as  this:...  If  such  a  person,  so 
situated,  best  answered  the  ends  of  such  an  institution  by 
acting  in  such  a  manner,  how  shall  we,  in  our  situation,  best 
answer  the  ends  of  the  same  ? — Sometimes,  merely  proposing 
this  form  of  inquiry  will  carry  us  right ;  but,  in  more  dif 
ficult  cases,  we  shall  have  the  general  principles,  the  nature 
and  end  of  the  duty  in  question,  to  investigate,  and  from 


1  Deut.   xvi.    16.     Deut.  xx.   16,   17. 
1  Kings  xviii.  40.     2  Kings  x.  25. 
3  Dr  Powell,  Disc.  iii.  p.  54. 

3  Hume's  Engl.  Hist.  A.D.  1653. 

4  Dan.vii.  27. 

5  See  the  Sussex  Jury,    in    Hume's 
Hist.  A.D.  1053. 

6  Lardner,  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  407. 


7  How  misapplying  Scripture  brought 
on  the  miseries  of  our  Civil  wars,  is  ex 
plained  by  Dr  Powell,  Disc.  iii. — But 
he  joins  (of  course)  misinterpretations 
and  misapplications  together.  See  after 
wards  about  heresy  being  punished  with 
death  in  England ;  seemingly  from  adopt 
ing  Jewish  ideas  of  punishing  blasphemy, 
&c.  B.  in.  Chap.  xiv.  Sect.  15. 


APPLYING    SCRIPTURE    SAYINGS  [I.  xi.  4-. 


these  to  determine  the  particular  cases ;  that  is,  how,  in  such   I. 

cases,  the  ends  of  the  duty  can  be  best  attained However, 

in  most  questions,  a  good  heart  will  be  more  requisite  than 
a  good  head. 

It  may  be  thought,  that  investigating  the  theory  of  any 
duty,  is  superseding  Scripture;  but  it  seems  to  be  the  only 
method  of  preventing  misapplication  of  Scripture :  it  seems  to 
be  what  Scripture  takes  for  granted  we  shall  do  to  the  utmost 
of  our  power1 — In  the  first  age  of  Christianity2,  wisdom  and 
knowledge  (human  wisdom  and  knowledge)  were  given  super-  78 
naturally  to  apostles  and  prophets ;  in  later  ages,  they  are 
to  be  acquired  naturally,  by  study  and  observation.  Wis 
dom,  as  mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  is  understood  to  be  the  kind 
of  thing  which  we  are  now  recommending :  if  we  endeavour 
to  attain  it,  we  must  study  all  the  phenomena,  natural  and 
moral,  which  fall  within  our  reach ;  and  gather  from  them 
whatever  reason  and  experience  can  teach,  with  regard  to  the 
greatest  happiness  of  mankind  :  if  we  aim  at  knowledge,  we 
must  study  whatever  Revelation  teaches  concerning  the  dispen 
sations  of  God.  Both  are  wanting  in  the  subject  before  us. 

4.  Having  thus  proposed  the  general  form  of  our  inquiry, 
we  may  mention  a  particular  instance  in  which  Scripture 
seems  sometimes  to  have  been  misapplied. — Several  things  are 
said  in  Scripture  about  ministers  of  the  church,  which  must, 
of  course,  point  out  some  form  of  church-government.  Now, 
supposing  all  men  agreed  in  understanding  the  terms  made 
use  of  in  the  scriptural  distribution  of  ecclesiastical  authority ; 
would  it  follow,  that  exactly  the  same  kind  of  church-mi 
nisters  should  be  appointed  in  all  religious  communities  ?  some 
have  wished  to  make  this  their  standard  ;  but  I  should  rather 
say,  the  right  method  was,  to  study,  in  human  nature  with 
wisdom,  and  in  Scripture  with  knowledge,  the  theory  of  re 
ligious  society ;  its  nature  and  ends,  with  the  best  methods 
of  attaining  those  ends;  under  different  climates,  under  dif 
ferent  habitual  notions,  and  different  arbitrary  customs :  then, 
to  consider  the  case  of  the  earliest  Christian  churches  in  these 
respects ;  then,  our  own  case ;  and,  on  the  comparison,  apply 
the  general  form  of  reasoning ;  being  cautious,  neither  lightly 


1  Before,  1.  iv.  5. 

2  1  Cor.  xii.  8,  28.     See  Dr.  Horsley's 
Ordination  Sermon,  on  1  Cor.  ii.  2,  p.  10. 
Also  see  Warburton  on  the  Spirit,  p.  24, 


&c — Mr.  Locke,  on  1  Cor.  ii.  2,  sets  out 
with  rather  a  different  idea,  but  con 
cludes  with  diffidence,  and  in  a  manner 
reconcilable  to  Bp.  Warburton, 


I.  Xi.  5,  6.]  AKD    ACTIONS    TO    OURSELVES. 


55 


I.  to  adopt,  nor  needlessly  to  set  aside  the  precedents  of  the 
79  apostolic  ages:  if  churches  so  situated  were  so  governed,  in 
what  manner  were  it  best  that  ours  should  be  governed  ? — 
The  determination  of  this  question  is  not  our3  present  busi 
ness  :  only  the  manner  in  which  it  should  be  considered.  We 
hope,  however,  that  our  church  has  determined  in  a  manner 
which  these  principles  would  justify. 

5.  Under  the  old   law,  every  seventh   day  of  the  week 
is  appointed  to  be  a  day  of  rest,  or  sabbath  ;  and,  under  the 
new  law,  there  is  no  direct  command  to  change  that  day  of 
rest   from   the    seventh  day   of  the   week   to  the    first.      And 
some  Christians  have  thought  the  Jewish  sabbath  ought  to  be 
observed  perpetually  ;   nay,  some  used  to  keep  both  sabbaths. 
Yet  the  earliest   Christians   seem  to   have  observed  the  first 
day,  instead  of  the  last ;   and  so  do  most  later  Christians. — 
There  has  been  also  a  difference  in  the  degree  of  rest,  under 
the  two  different  dispensations,  and  amongst  different  parties 
under  each  dispensation.      How  are  we  to  settle  our  duty  in 
this  matter  ? — the  method  seems  to  be  the   same  as  before : 
to  endeavour  to  learn  the  true  nature  and  end  of  a  sabbath, 
from  the  nature  of  man,  to  think  how  far  his  body  requires 
repose,   and  his  mind  to  be   turned  from  lower   pursuits   to 
moral  and  religious  ones  :   how  far  outward  decency  and  clean 
liness  promote  inward  purity  and  humanity.      ("  The  sabbath 
was  made  for  man,   not   man  for   the   sabbath.")      Next,   to 
collect  all  the  texts  of  Scripture  enjoining  it ;   to  learn  the 
circumstances  of  those  who  observed  it  first  under  the  Mosaic, 
then   under   the   Christian   dispensation ;   afterwards,  to   com 
pare  our  own  circumstances  with  theirs ;  and,  finally,  to  say, 

80  if  persons  so  circumstanced4  rested  from  their  labours  on 
such  a  day  of  the  week,  and  in  such  a  manner,  how  could 
we,  in  our  circumstances,  best  promote  the  ends  of  such  an 
observance  as  a  sabbath  ? 

6.  Our   Lord   washed   the  feet  of  his   disciples;    some 
have  thought  that  we  ought  literally  "  to  wash  one  another's5 


8  The  subject  belongs  to  Art.  30  of 
the  Church  of  England. 

4  See  Walton's  Misna,  vol.  i.  Pref. 
and  Diss.  on  Sabbatical  Texts.  Ileylin 
has  also  an  elaborate  discourse  on  the 
sabbath  : — he  makes  the  Lord's  day  dis 
tinct  from  the  sabbath :  and  says  it  is  no 
sabbath.  Bp.  Porteus  is  against  Sunday 


being  made  gloomy,  but  for  its  being 
religious.  See  his  Letter  on  Sunday 
Schools,  p.  23. 

5  Cave,  Hist.  Lit.  Tom.  11.  Diss.  ii. 
p.  33.  Ni7TTj?'/o.  Barclay,  as  Quaker,  says 
we  should  do  this  to  be  consistent,  if  we 
retain  our  ordinance,  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Apol.  p.  409.  Edit.  Birm.  1765. 


56  APPLYING     SCRIPTURE     SAYINGS  [I.   XI.   7- 

feet:"  (John  xiii.  14.)  —  whether  we  ought  or  not,  will  de-  I. 
pend  upon  reasoning  of  the  same  kind  :  we  must  consider  the 
nature  of  man,  the  rectitude  of  acts  of  condescension1 ;  how 
far  they  should  be  external  and  visible ;  how  far  this  was  a 
necessary  office  and  a  customary  servile  one,  according  to  the 
eastern  mode  of  travelling. — We  should  also  observe,  how 
actions  were  used  in  the  east,  instead  of  words ;  and  were  ex 
pressive,  not  only  of  the  present,  but  of  the  future :  we 
should  inquire,  from  circumstances,  whether  the  act  of  wash 
ing  feet  could  be  symbolical;  or  whether  it  appears  to  have 
been  such  from  hints  thrown  out:  how  the  first  Christians 
acted  upon  our  Saviour's  injunction.  On  these  grounds,  when 
we  have  recollected  our  own  circumstances,  our  own  modes  of 
travelling,  our  own  customs,  as  to  making  actions  symbolical, 
must  our  determinations,  with  regard  to  our  duty  at  this  time, 
be  formed. 

7-  Much  controversy  has  arisen  about  the  manner  of 
celebrating  the  Lord's  supper. — Jesus  took  bread  and  wine  81 
after  a  real  meal,  or  a  convivial  religious  feast :  some  think  we 
ought  therefore  to  make  a  meal  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or,  if 
we  only  have  the  resemblance  of  a  meal,  we  ought  to  sit  at  it; 
others  think  that  the  thing  enjoined  is  only  a  commemoration, 
and  as  the  bread  and  wine  were  only  taken  after  a  meal,  and 
we  make  an  acknowledgement  of  a  stupendous  benefit  conferred 
by  a  divine  person,  we  ought  to  use  the  humblest  posture  of 
religious  adoration. — The  early  Christians  went  on  in  a  plain 
simple  way,  with  feasts  of  caritas,  aya-rrr]^  till  inconveniencies 
arose,  and  then  they  changed  some  things,  retaining  every 
thing  they  thought  essential.  Wisdom  here  must  have  less 
influence  than  knowledge:  ao(pia  must  be  less  useful  than 
yvwais.  But  how  are  we  to  act? — We  are  to  endeavour, 
even  here,  to  get  at  general,  fundamental  principles ;  but  they 
will  chiefly  be  found  in  the  manner  of  instituting  the  rite: — 
we  have  an  act,  which  we  dare  venture  to  call  a  comme 
moration  ; —  there  seems  little  reason  to  doubt  its  being  of  a 
symbolic  or  emblematical  nature,  intended  to  express  our  ac 
ceptance  of  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the 
consequent  remission  of  our  sins ;  intended  to  proclaim  all  this 
to  all  men,  whatever  language  they  speak  ;  intended  to  pro 
mote  mutual  benevolence  amongst  Christians.  And  we  can  see, 
from  our  knowledge  of  human  nature,  that  acts  of  gratitude 

1  The  Saturnalia  had  acts  of  condescension. 


I.  xi.  8.] 


AND     ACTIONS     TO    OURSELVES. 


I.  promote  sentiments  of  gratitude ;  that  periodical  commemora 
tions  prevent  benefits  long  past  from  dying  away  and  sinking 
into  oblivion  ; — that  a  religion,  intended  to  unite  all  nations 
and  languages,  must  have  some  visible  signs  intelligible  to  all ; 
— that  finding  we  have  a  common  interest  in  any  thing  great 
and  important,  makes  us  more  interested  in  one  another  ;  and 
therefore  more  benevolent  and  affectionate  :  perhaps  study  and 

82  attention  may  teach  us  more   principles :   our  business  is,  to 
settle  them  as  far  as  possible;  to  consider  the  circumstances 
of  the  first  Christians,  and  our  own  ;  and  say,  if  the  ends  of 
such  an  institution  were  best  answered  by  people  so  situated, 
acting  in  such  a  manner,  how  will  they  best  be  answered  by 
us  ? — It  may  seem  odd,  that,  amongst  the  different  observers 
of  this  rite,  there  has  never  been  a  sect  of  accumbers ;  our 
Saviour  neither  kneeled2,  nor  sate,  when  he  instituted  the  sa 
crament  of  the  Lord's  supper ;  but  was  in  that  posture,  which 
we  have  no  word  to  express,  and  which  the  Romans  expressed 
by  using  the  word  accumbere. 

We  might  reason  in  the  same  manner,  concerning  the 
community  of  goods  seemingly  instituted  amongst  the  very 
first  Christians3; — and  concerning  the  application  of  recom 
mendations,  and  instances  of  hospitality,  now  that  we  have 
inns,  and  no  persecuted  brethren,  no  common  cause  of  divine 
authority  in  seeming  danger:  but  we  will  not  stop  here,  as 
probably  no  community  of  goods,  strictly  speaking,  ever  did 
take  place  amongst  Christians; — and  hospitality,  though  a 
perpetual  duty,  has  not  been  remarkably  mistaken ;  has  not 
produced  any  dissensions. 
*  8.  Such  is  the  manner  in  which  we  should  apply  the 

directions  and  narrations  of  Scripture  to  our  own  conduct 

It  may  be  apprehended  that  there  is  some  danger  in  allowing 
such  application  upon  such  calculations :  it  may  be  said,  "  all 
duties  may  be  evaded  thus :  a  man  has  only  to  allege  that 
his  circumstances  are  very  different  from  those  of  the  persons 

83  to  whom  the  duty   was  enjoined,   and  he    may  be  exempted 
from  the  performance  of  it." — There  is  so  much  meaning  in 
this  difficulty  as  to  require  a  caution,  lest  men  should  suffer 
themselves  to  be  led  into  evasion  and  self-deceit,  by  the  kind 


2  Wheatley  says,  accumbing  "  was  the 
table-gesture    among     those     nations." 
p.  318. 

3  Some  ancient  Christians  would  not 


be  baptized  till  they  were  thirty  years 
old,  because  Christ  was  not. — Wall  on 
Inf.  Bapt.  i.  ii.  7. 


58  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  Int. 

of  reasoning  here  recommended.  There  is  no  liberty  which 
men  in  a  state  of  trial  may  not  abuse :  but  they  must  not,  on 
that  account,  be  deprived  of  liberty.  Men's  obligations  must 
depend  on  their  situations  in  life,  and  on  the  several  relations 
in  which  they  stand :  if  they  will  mistake,  or  pretend  to  mis 
take,  their  situations,  they  must :  but  those  who  mean  toler 
ably  well  may  be  cautioned,  that  they  be  thoroughly  sincere 
in  determining  what  is  their  duty,  and  resolute  in  performing 
what  proves  to  be  so.  And  this  caution  must  not  be  confined 
to  the  whole  of  any  duty,  taken  as  one  individual  thing;  but 
extended  to  the  several  parts  of  it ;  nay,  to  the  modes  of  per 
forming  it ;  for,  if  a  man  will  avoid  this  mode  of  performing 
a  duty,  and  that  mode,  and  so  on,  saying,  that  modes  are  not 
essential'  to  the  duty,  he  may,  in  turns,  avoid  all  possible 
modes,  and  therefore  the  duty  itself;  for  it  must  be  performed 
after  some  mode,  if  it  is  performed  at  all.  But,  if  men  must 
not  be  told  the  truth,  because  there  is  a  danger  of  their  abus 
ing  it,  the  Scripture  must  be  left  incapable  of  defence,  and 
liable  to  do  harm,  instead  of  good. 

Here  it  may  not  be  improper  to  observe,  that  we  have  an 
instance  of  what  was  mentioned,  I.  i.  7,  about  the  division 
of  our  system  into  several  distinct  parts:  we  may  now  be 
said  to  have  gone  through  a  set  of  lectures  on  the  manner  of 
attaining  the  true  sense  of  Scripture. 

The  chapters,  which  follow,  may  be  conceived  as  furnish 
ing  matter  for  a  set  of  lectures  "  de  veritate  religionis  Chris 
tiana?  :"  to  the  end  of  this  first  book. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

OF    EXAMINING    THE    GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY 
OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED     SACRED. 

INTRODUCTION. 

WE  have  considered  the  manner  of  interpreting  'the  Scrip 
tures,  taking  for  granted  their  divine  authority: but,  to 

see  the  reasons  for  concluding  them  to  be  divine,  is  one 
great  end  of  researches  such  as  ours. 

We  might  begin  with  the  Old  Testament;  but  perhaps 
a  less  difficult  and  equally  sure  way  would  be  to  begin  with 


I.  xii.  Int.]        OF  BOOKS  ACCOUNTED  SACRED.  59 

I.  the  New.  As  the  New  refers  to  the  Old,  and  joins  the  Chris 
tian  dispensation  to  the  Mosaic,  (which  it  would  not  do,  if 
it  did  not  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic),  we  may 
be  assured,  that,  when  we  prove  the  New  to  be  divine,  we  in 
effect  prove  the  Old  to  be  so  likewise1. 

It  is  remarkable,  as  to  the  incidental  good  it  produces, 
that  the  Jews  maintain  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  deny  that  of  the  New : — and  the  Jews  and  Christians  are 
so  divided,  that  their  joint  testimony  in  favour  of  the  Old 
Testament,  is  very  strong.  Without  such  joint  testimony  of 
enemies,  infidels  would  say,  the  Old  and  New  Testament  were 
made  to  suit  each  other. 

Before  we  enter  into  particulars,  let  us  fix  upon  some 
plan  which  may  unite  our  observations,  and  shew  their  con 
nexion. 

We   affirm,    that   there    has   been    a  divine    Revelation : 
"how  do  you  know  that?"  say  our  adversaries  ; — we  answer, 
85  i.    It  is  scarcely  possible  to  read  the  Scriptures,  without 

being  convinced  of  it. 

ii.  The  success,  which  their  doctrine  met  with,  confirms 
our  ideas  of  their  original. 

iii.  And  so  also  does  the  need  there  was  of  them  for  the 
instruction  and  reformation  of  mankind. 

i.  "  The  Scriptures  /"  say  they  ;  "  we  have  seen  a  book, 
giving  an  account  of  some  strange  things,  but  who  would 
pay  it  any  serious  attention  ?  what  know  we  of  it,  or  of  its 
authors  ?"  In  answer,  we  undertake  to  prove,  that  the  several 
books  of  Scripture  are  genuine ;  that  is,  written  by  the  per 
sons  to  whom  they  are  respectively  ascribed. 

"  But  these  are  obscure  authors ;  at  what  time  did  they 
live  ?  They  foretel  some  things ;  but  how  know  we  that  they 
did  not  foretel  events  after  those  events  came  to  pass  ?" — In 
answer,  we  say,  that  we  can  have  the  same  proof  of  the  time, 
when  the  authors  lived,  as  of  their  having  written  the  books. 

"But  the  incidents  which  they  relate,  what  assurance 
have  we  that  they  were  not  mere  invention  ?" — we  will  give 
reasons  why  this  supposition  is  inadmissible. 

"  Well,  suppose  these  men  wrote  what  they  believed,  yet 
they  might  be  mistaken  as  to  the  things  they  record."  We 
answer,  the  history  they  give  contains  in  itself,  and  implies, 
ample  testimony  of  the  principal  facts  recorded. 

1  See  John  v.  39.    Heb.  x.  1;  ix.  23.    Col.  ii.  1J, 


60  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  Int. 

"  This  might  be  admitted,"  say  they,  "  if  the  writers  I. 
in  question  only  recorded  things  in  the  common  course  of  na 
ture  ;  but  they  dwell  on  supernatural  events."  We  answer, 
those  supernatural  events  are  themselves  proofs  of  the  truth 
of  their  relations. — "Miracles  and  prodigies,"  say  the  in 
fidels,  "  are  suspicious  things :"  and  one  ingenious  philosopher 
has  thought,  that  a  miracle,  as  an  argument  to  the  human 
understanding,  is  an  impossibility.  "  But,  supposing  miracles 
could  be  performed,  and  even  proved  in  theory ',  yet  in  fact,  86 
such  proof  is  not  to  be  expected;  no  real  situation  can  be 
assigned,  in  which  it  is  to  be  found; — nay,  supposing  a 
miracle  made  credible,  what  follows  ?  because  a  man  can  do 
what  I  cannot,  or  even  something  beyond  the  powers  of  na 
ture,  am  I  therefore  to  obey  every  thing  he  orders,  as  if  it 
were  divine?" — To  all  this,  we  can  only  reply  at  present  thus: 
we  hope  to  shew,  that  the  truest  philosophy  justifies  the  use 
of  miracles  on  great  occasions,  in  order  to  convince  the  mind 
of  man :  that,  though  strong  proof  is  required  to  make  a 
miracle  credible,  yet  the  Scripture  does  furnish  such  as  is 
sufficient,  and  such  as  will  be  owned  sufficient  by  all  who 
calmly  estimate  the  ability,  the  honesty,  and  the  number  of 
those  who  form  the  testimony  : — that  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament  had  something  in  them  so  convincing,  and  so  pe 
culiarly  seasonable,  as  to  shew  the  superintendence  of  God 
himself. 

But  moreover,  the  Scriptures  give  accounts  of  prophecies  ; 
of  things  predicted  and  completed: — "what  superstition," 
say  the  infidels,  "  ever  wanted  predictions  and  prognostica 
tions  ? — but  he,  who  examines  yours,  will  find  them  ambiguous, 
obscure,  poetical ;  in  a  dead  language,  imperfectly  understood, 
scanty  in  words,  (so  that  one  word  means  several  different 
things)  abounding  in  tropes  and  figures,  and  not  discriminat 
ing  past  and  future  ,- — in  writings  partly  historical,  partly 
poetical : — can  sentences  so  circumstanced  convince  a  reason 
able  mind  ?  or,  if  we  call  them  predictions,  can  any  history 
prove  them  to  have  been  fulfilled  by  design  ?" — We  can  only 
reply,  that  we  despair  not  even  here  to  satisfy  the  unpreju 
diced,  when  we  come  to  lay  open  the  nature  of  prophecy. 

ii.    In   the  next    place   we    say,    that    the   religion    which 
the  Scriptures  propose   is  divine,  because  no  religion  merely    87 
human    could    have   spread  as  it  did :    supposing    the  gospel 
true,  its  propagation  was  perfectly  natural;  supposing  it  false, 


I.  xii.  1,2.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED.  61 

I.  perfectly  unaccountable: — and  taking  the  miracles  for  granted, 
they  shew,  that  it  was  God's  intention  to  have  the  Gospel  so 
propagated ;  the  mere  consequences  of  an  act  of  God  (if  we 
can  ascertain  one  properly  so  called)  shew  the  divine  1 inten 
tion.  It  may  indeed  be  objected,  that,  in  listening  to  accounts 
of  the  first  propagation  of  Christianity,  we  give  too  much 
credit  to  the  partial  accounts  of  our  friends,  and  too  little 
to  the  impartial  ones  of  our  enemies:  but  we  hope  to  give 
satisfaction  on  these  heads,  as  well  as  others. 

iii.  Thirdly  and  lastly,  lest  our  adversaries  should  urge, 
that  all  the  profusion  of  miracles,  and  of  sufferings,  recorded 
in  Scripture,  was  needless,  as  men  would  have  improved  in 
moral  virtue  and  natural  religion  without  them;  —  we  will 
shew,  that  it  is  more  just  and  reasonable  to  say,  that  men  had 
real  need  of  Revelation,  for  the  purposes  of  instruction  and 
reformation. 

1.  We  may  now  begin  our  xnth  chapter  with   remark 
ing,  that  all  historical  evidence  can  only  be  probable  evidence : 
demonstration ,   properly   speaking,   is   not  applicable   to   the 
credibility  of  facts.  —  I   would  not  object  to  Hueffs  Demon- 
stratio  Evangelica  having  definitions,  axioms,  postulates,  pro 
positions  ;  — only  let  not  the  argument  be  mistaken  for   one 
strictly  demonstrative.      As  a  principle  of  action,  probability 
is  sufficient ;  in  a  state  of  trial,  it  is  more  to  be  expected  than 
certainty  ;  as  Bishop   Butler   says,  "  probability   is   the   very 
guide  of  life2;" — and  all  we  want  is  to  give  men  a  sufficient 
guide  for  their  conduct. 

88  If  any   one    thinks   that    we  ought    to   have    more    than 

probability  to  go  upon  in  things  of  such  importance,  he  should 
remember,  that  it  is  only  probable  that  we  shall  die ;  it  is 
only  probable  that  the  sun  will  ever  rise  again.  Yet  we  go 
upon  these  things  as  certainties. 

It  has  been  matter  of  dispute,  whether  morality  is  capable 
of  demonstration  ;  I  suppose  all  that  is  meant,  in  such  dis 
pute,  by  demonstration,  is  shewing,  that  good  consequences 
follow  from  virtue ;  but  as  consequences  are  only  matter  of 
experience  and  analogy,  that  is  only  probable  proof. 

2.  In  order  that  we  may  reason  the  more  intelligibly, 
let  us,  first,  take  notice  of  some  of  the  terms,  which  will  most 
frequently   occur;    such   as  genuine,   authentic,   apocryphal, 
canonical. 

1  Powell,  p.  112.  2  Introd.  to  Analogy,  Parag.  3. 


62  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  2. 

A  work  is  genuine,  when  it  is  written  by  the  person  whose  I. 
name  it  bears :  some  think  Rowley's  Poems  genuine,  others 
not : — from  hence  it  should  follow,  that  no  anonymous  work 
could  have  genuineness  either  affirmed  or  denied  of  it ;  never 
theless,  if  a  work  is  what  it  pretends  to  be,  I  think  it  is 
called  genuine  in  an  enlarged  sense.  The  opposite  to  genuine 
spurious,  supposititious,  (suppositus,  suppose,  put  clandes 
tinely  in  the  place  of  another,  forged,)  or  in  the  Greek, 
pseudep  igr  aphus . 

Authentic  means,  having  authority ;  a  writing  may  be 
genuine,  and  yet  not  authentic ;  or  authentic,  though  the 
word  genuine  cannot  be  applied  to  it.  The  Poems  called 
Rowley^s  may  be  genuine,  but  nothing  can  be  properly  said 
about  their  being  or  not  being  authentic,  except  perhaps  as 
proofs  of  antiquities,  &c. ; — whatever  is  used  as  authority  in 
proving,  may  be  called  authentic  in  some  sense.  The  first 
epistle  of  Clemens  and  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  are  genuine, 
but  have  no  authority  on  which  we  can  build  doctrines.  On  89 
the  other  hand,  writings  may  be  of  good  authority,  grounded 
upon  testimonies,  experience,  arguments,  and  yet  their  au 
thors  may  be  wholly  unknown.  It  has  been  thought1,  that 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  might  be  proved  authentic, 
though  we  did  not  know  the  writers  of  them. 

Apocryphal  seems  usually  to  be  opposed  to  authentic;  at 
least  so  as  to  express  doubt  concerning  authenticity  :  an  apo 
cryphal  writing  is  one  whose  origin  and  authority  is  doubted, 
or  disallowed,  which  in  this  case  is  nearly  the  same  with 
denied. — But  about  this  word  more  will  occur  under  the  6th 
Article  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  some  titles  of  ancient 
books  there  is  an  ambiguity,  which  may  confound  genuine, 
authentic,  and  apocryphal.  The  preachings  of  Peter'-2  and 
Paul  may  mean,  that  Peter  and  Paul  are  the  authors ;  or 
that  they  are  only  the  preachers,  their  preachings  being  sup 
posed  to  be  recorded  by  others And  on  other  occasions, 

spurious  and  apocryphal  seem  to  be  sometimes  confounded  ; 
or  apocryphal  defined  spurious3.  But  it  may  often  happen, 
that  a  writing  which  is  apocryphal,  or  of  doubtful  authority, 
may  be  spurious  also. 

Canonical  is  used  in  divinity  to  mean  part  of  the  canon, 
or  collection  of  writings  of  divine  authority:  but  the  connexion 

1  Dr.  Powell,  Disc.  iv.  p.  6J.  |      3  Lard.  Works,  vol.  n.  p.  362. 

2  Lard.  Credib.  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  417. 


I.  Xii.  3.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED. 


63 


I.  of  canonical  with  the  Greek  word  KCLVWV  does  not  seem  to  be 
agreed  upon.  Kavcov  is  a  rule,  but  some  think  that  rule  to  be 
the  rule  of  our  faith  and  practice4 ;  so  that  canonical  writings 
are  those  which  are  to  regulate  our  faith  and  manners ; 

0,0  others  call  it  a  balance  to  try5  things  by;  others  think  that 
the  rule  is  the  decree  of  the  church,  made  at  some  council. 
This  difference  is  not  very  material ;  the  rules  here  understood 
are  consistent  with  each  other,  and  with  the  opinion  that  the 
canonical  books  are  either  written  or  authorized  by  the  Apostles. 
(Richardson,  p.  7,  note.) — The  word  seems  to  have  been  used, 
because  it  occurs  in  Gal.  vi.  10,  and  Phil.  iii.  16.  This  term 
will  also  recur  under  Art.  6,  of  our  church. 

3.  The  canonical  books  are  frequently  called  inspired 
books :  it  is  therefore  right  to  endeavour  to  ascertain  wherein 
inspiration  consists.  Yet  here,  with  a  view  to  our  own  par 
ticular  method,  it  may  possibly  be  observed,  that  this  is  not 
the  place  for  entering  into  controversies  about  inspiration, 
because  all  our  first  book  professes  to  be  about  theology  as 
common  to  all  sects  of  Christians :  but  there  is  scarce  any 
point  about  which  there  is  not  some  difference  amongst  Chris 
tians  ;  and  this  matter  of  inspiration  does  not  seem  to  divide 
Christians  into  sects:  we  will  therefore  content  ourselves  with 
mentioning  a  few  notions,  as  we  would  to  heathens :  giving 
the  preference  indeed  to  one,  but  leaving  all  Christians  to  pro 
fess  their  own  peculiar  notions  and  systems. 

Some  men  have  been  of  opinion,  that  every  word  of  Scrip 
ture  was  inspired,  and  therefore  that  the  sacred  writers  were 
mere  instruments ;  this,  Bishop  Warburton  calls G  organic 
inspiration ;  and  I  suppose  Dr.  Priestley  means  the  same  by 
"  plenary  inspiration ;"  this  seems  the  highest  degree  of  sup 
posed  inspiration  :  the  Socinians  seem  to  take  the  lowest.  Dr. 

91  Priestley  says,  that  St.  Paul  knew  nothing  of  the  fall  of  man 
but  from  the  writings  of  Moses7;  and  that  his  writings 
"  abound  with  analogies  and  antitheses,  on  which  no  very 
serious  stress  is  to  be  laid." — But  such  as  seem  to  me  the 
most  judicious  and  learned  men,  suppose,  that  the  sacred 
writers  were  informed  supernaturallv  as  to  the  substance  of 
the  Christian  scheme,  and  were  left  to  their  own  habits  of 


4  Richardson,  p.  6. 

5  Jer.  Jones,  vol.  i.  p.  22.      On  this 
word,  see  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  5. 

ti  Warb.  on  Grace,  p.  43. 


7  Letter  to  Dr.  Price,  p.  159.  Birm. 
1J87.  But  see  the  motto  to  Mr.  Ormerod's 
book  against  Dr.  Priestley  :  from  Dis 
quisitions  on  Matter  and  Spirit. 


64  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  3. 

speaking  as  far  as  related   to  the  mode  of  expression ;  only    I. 
care  was  taken  by  providence,  that  they  did  not  necessarily 
lead  men  into  any   material   error ;    the  rule  they   published 
being  to  stand  as  an  Infallible  rule  ;  as  a  criterion,  by  which 
all  notions  and  opinions,  as  well  as  practices,  were  to  be  tried. 

After  the  pretensions  which  St.  Paul  makes,  in  the  open 
ing  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  there  seems  no  medium  : 
he  must  either  be  an  impostor,  or  furnished  with  supernatural 
knowledge.  He  cannot  speak  as  a  mere  man,  of  things  above 
man's  comprehension.  In  1  Cor.  vii.  he  distinguishes  be 
tween  what  he  says  of  himself  and  what  he  says  from  his 
Lord:  Paul  had  never  any  intercourse  with  Christ  but  what 
was  supernatural.  And  this  may  seemingly  be  applied  to 
the  other  sacred  writers :  had  they  set  themselves  on  recording 
the  acts  and  sayings  of  Christ  during  his  lifetime,  they  might 
have  been  on  the  same  footing  with  other  historians ;  but 
they  received  their  commission a  after  the  death  of  Christ ; 
they  profess  to  have  received  it  supernaturally ;  either  they 
did  so,  or  they  are  impostors.  There  is  no  writer,  that  I 
know  of,  who  says  what  is  so  much  to  the  purpose  on  this 
subject,  in  so  small  a  compass,  as  Dr.  Powell,  in  the  opening  92 
of  his  4th  and  15th  discourses. 

With  regard  to  the  continuance  of  inspiration,  it  seems 
as  if  we  might  form  some  analogy,  from  the  account  which 
we  find  of  spiritual  gifts  in  1  Cor.  chap.  xiv. — There,  it  ap 
pears,  that  men  had  a  power  of  speaking  languages  superna 
turally  ;  and  the  most  judicious  (in  my  estimation)  think,  that 
a  man  who  spoke  a  foreign  language  so,  was  upon  the  same 
footing  with  those  who  had  learnt  that  language  naturally  : 
like  as  a  man  who  was  once  miraculously  healed  of  lameness, 
continued  to  walk  as  if  he  had  been  healed  in  an  ordinary3 
way.  Dr.  Middleton  held,  that  inspiration  was  temporary 
and  occasional;  but  this  notion  appears  improbable,  because 
those  who  had  the  power  of  speaking  a  foreign  language  for 
the  sake  of  being  understood,  abused  that  power,  and  spake 
that  language,  through  ostentation,  to  those  who  did  not  un 
derstand  it :  now,  it  is  not  to  be  conceived,  that  the  words 
would  be  suggested  miraculously,  by  a  particular  inspiration, 
when  they  were  abused ;  though  such  abuse  might  be  per 
mitted,  when  a  man  knew  the  language  as  a  language  is 

1  Warburton,  p.  45,  46.    Richardson,  I      »  Powell,  p.  248. 
p.  8.  I       3  Warburton  on  the  Spirit,  p.  21. 


I.  Xii.  4.]       OF  BOOKS  ACCOUNTED  SACRED.  65 

I.   commonly  known And,  if  the  knowledge  of  a  language  was 

communicated  all  together,  as  one  thing,  is  it  not  likely,  that 
the  knowledge  of  the  Christian  scheme  would  be  communicated 
entire,  in  like  manner  ?  such  a  simple  communication  is  rather  to 
be  allowed,  than  a  complex  and  reiterated  communication — than 
a  series  of  miracles.  Dr.  Middletori's  opinion  therefore,  that 
inspiration  was  temporary  and  occasional,  seems  not  probable. 

It  may  perhaps  be  said,  that  referring  the  sacred  writings 
to  the  divine  influence  is  only  a  pious  mode  of  expression, 

93  and  implies  no  distinct  fact.  This  may  be  sometimes  the 
case:  Richardson4  mentions  some  instances,  which  agree  with 
what  will  be  laid  down  under  Art.  10th  of  the  Church5  of 
England.  But  the  way,  in  which  the  Apostles  became  in 
spired,  implies  an  higher  degree  of  inspiration:  however,  it  does 
not  seem  our  business  to  ascertain  exactly  in  what  degree  the 
Apostles  were  inspired.  We  probably  are  incapable  of  finding 
that  out,  or  even  of  understanding  it  with  precision :  in  Scrip 
ture,  we  see  the  effects ;  we  must  conceive  the  inspiration  to 
have  been  something  capable  of  producing  those  effects,  and 
perhaps  we  can  get  no  nearer.  And  I  know  not  whether  all 
parties  do  not,  at  the  bottom,  though  they  may  not  always 
be  conscious  of  it,  follow  this  plan,  of  reasoning  from  effect  to 
cause :  each  seems  to  settle  the  nature  and  degree  of  inspi 
ration,  so  that  it  shall  be  sufficient  to  account  for  what  he 
deems  the  true  sense  of  Scripture.  This  imperfection  of  our 
knowledge  may  afford  a  farther  excuse  for  treating  the  subject 
of  inspiration  out  of  its  proper  place. 

4.  Before  we  come  to  a  direct  proof  that  the  books  of 
the  Scripture  are  genuine,  we  must  remove  a  difficulty  out 
of  the  way ;  and  that  is,  what  arises  from  the  multitude  of 
books  which,  we  are  told,  in  early  times  of  Christianity  were 
a  kind  of  competitors  with  the  books  now  reckoned  canonical. 
— Let  us  state  the  fact,  before  we  reason  upon  it. — In  our 
own  times  we  have  the  books  of  Scripture  in  one  volume,  and 
no  skill  is  required  to  distinguish  them  from  others ;  but  in  the 
earliest  times  of  Christianity  the  few  sacred  writings  subsist 
ing  were  dispersed  ;  read  in  one  church,  and  not  known  in 

91-  another;  and  for  one  that  was  really  sacred,  there  were  per 
haps  ten  or  more  that  either  pretended  to  be  so,  or  were 
quoted  with  respect  by  the  Fathers,  or  read  in  Christian  assem- 

4  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  vin-  ,       5  Book  IV.  Art.  (or  ('hap. )  x.  Sect, 
dicated,  p.  29.  |   39. 

VOL.  I.  5 


66 


GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  4. 


blies :  (and,  moreover,  in  some  persecutions,  it  was  forbidden  I. 
to  have  the  Scriptures  in  possession  :)  how  can  we  be  sure,  that 
we  have  not  admitted  some  of  these  inferior  writings  into  our 
canon,  or  rejected  some  which  ought  to  have  been  admitted? 
—-In  answer  to  this  question,  we  must  describe  the  books  here 
spoken  of  more  particularly. 

i.  First,  the  Antilegomena  or  seven  controverted  parts  of 
the  New  Testament1  may  be  mentioned,  which  were  not 
generally  received  till  after  the  rest,  and  are  not  yet,  I  think, 
except  Hebrews  and  James,  received  by  the  Christians  in 
Syria8,  ii.  Then,  there  were  some  books  called  Ecclesiastical3 , 
such  as  were  not  reckoned  of  divine  authority,  but  were  read 
in  churches,  as  pious  and  edifying.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  the  First  Epistle  of  Clement,  were  of 
this  number  :  and  the  word  scripture  was  applied  to  them4;  they 
were  spoken  of  as  ypcxprj,  or  eminent,  distinguished  writings. 
iii.  It  seems  also  far  from  improbable,  that  many  sayings  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  were  got  by  hearing5  them  repeated 
frequently  by  one  to  another,  and  so  at  last  written  down 
in  some  composition  of  some  Christian  writer,  iv.  Moreover, 
it  is  natural  to  think  that,  during  our  Saviour's  lifetime, 
some  sincere  well-meaning  Christians  might  immediately  make6 
memorandums  of  what  they  themselves  had  heard  our  Saviour  95 
say,  and  seen  him  do :  to  such  records  as  these  St.  Luke 
seems  to  refer,  in  the  opening  of  his  gospel :  these  were  written, 
before  the  famous  day  of  Pentecost,  and  without  any  divine  com 
mission,  v.  And  some  might  contain  accounts  of  the  Apostles, 
and  not  of  Christ.  The  apostolic"  constitutions  and  canons 
are  now  in  being ;  in  part  at  least  they  are  plainly  spurious ; 
but  there  are  some  men  of  judgment  who  have  thought  that 
the  ground-work  of  them  might  be  genuine*. — So  far  the 
writings  mentioned  might  now  be  worthy  of  attention ;  might 
be  accounted  genuine,  though  not  authentic :  but,  vi.  There 
were  others,  composed  by  men  weak  and  foolish ;  in  order  to 
recommend  Christianity  to  the  Gentiles,  by  an  additional 
number  of  miracles,  by  enlarging  narrations,  and  adding 
circumstances.  And,  vii.  Some  by  Christian  heretics ;  in  order 


1  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  of 
James,  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the 
Second  and  Third  of  John,  the  Epistle  of 
Jude,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation. 

2  Richardson,  p.  1JJ. 

3  Ibid.  p.  19. 


4  Homily,  8vo.  p.  76.   136.  303.    Or 
Richardson,  p.  27,  and  Lardner. 

5  Richardson,  p.  91.    See  Acts  xx.  35. 
8  Richardson,  p.  92. 

7  Ibid.  p.  93. 

8  Ibid. 


I.  xii.  4.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED.  67 

I.  to  justify  their  several  tenets:  the  Manicheans  adopted  and 
rejected  what  parts  of  the  New  Testament  they  pleased9;  and 
there  were  gospels  of  the  Valentinians,  the  gospel  of  Basilides, 
&c.  I  think,  in  all,  there  have  been  reckoned  up  forty  go 
spels,  and  thirty-six  writings  of  the  nature  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  If  we  want  a  general  motive  for  men's  composing 
false  gospels  and  acts,  we  may  assign  as  such  the  desire  of 
making  the  sacred  naratives  more  particular,  and  the  revealed 
notion  of  virtue  more  sublime,  pure,  Sec. — Lardner  speaks 
nearly  thus  vol  v.  p.  412,  &c. — Some  heretics  wanted  to  defend 
their  peculiar  doctrines,  but  many,  only  "  to  elevate  and 
surprise."  viii.  We  may,  besides,  mention  compositions  such 

96  as  that  of  Sa Ivian 10,  which  he  published  as  Timothy's,  through 
a  kind  of  modesty11,  meaning  no  harm;  well  written,  and  of 
intrinsic  value :  and  some  may  add  to  this  class  the  pretended 
works  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite. — ix.  There  are  several 
anonymous  writings  published  later  in  the  Church,  written  in 
some  sort  of  imitation  of  something  already  much  esteemed ; 
such  as  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  ascribed  to  Justin  Martyr, 
which  is  called  elegant;  and  the  Acts  of  Perpetua  and  Felicitas, 
who  suffered  in  the  persecution  under  Severus,  which  is  said  to 
be  affecting;  and  there  have  been  many  spurious  works 
ascribed  to  Cyprian,  and  other  Fathers ;  but,  as  these  did  not 
interfere  with  the  settling  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
we  need  descend  no  lower.  This  last  sort  of  writings,  and  the 
next  before  it,  might  make  one  class ;  only  that  the  motive  of 
writing  such  works  as  Salvian' s  wants  distinguishing.  More 
over,  it  has  no  imitation,  as  the  last  sort  has. 

We  see  then  what  it  is  which  authors  undertake,  who 
profess  to  treat  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  that 
their  undertaking  requires  reading  and  critical  skill.  Fabricius, 


9  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  518. 

10  Lard.  Credib.  u.  811.     Works,  vol. 
ii.  p.  361. 

11  This  does  not   seem  quite  a  clear 
statement.     Salvian    published   a    Dis 
course  on  Avarice,  under  the  name  of  Ti- 
tnotheus ; — Christians  immediately  said, 
is  this  written  by  Timotheus,  to  whom 
St.  Paul  addressed  two  Epistles  ?  there 
is  not  sufficient  proof  of  that ;  therefore, 
if  this  discourse  pretends  to  be  by  that 
Timotheus,  it  must  be  classed  with  apo 
cryphal  books :  Bishop  Salonius  writes 
to  Salvian  (his  quondam  preceptor)  to 


ask  him  about  this  matter;  Salvian,  in 
answer,  explains,  1.  Why  he  wrote  to  the 
Church  at  all.  2.  Why  he  did  not  put 
his  own  name  to  his  discourse,  through 
modesty,  &c.  3.  Why  he  put  the  name 
of  Timotheus  ; — he  meant  it  only  as  a 
name  expressing  honour  of  God,  as  Thco- 
philus  was  a  name  expressing  love  of 
God.— He  much  dreaded  all  falsehood; 
every  one  must  knoiv  that  his  discourse 
was  not  written  by  St.  Paul's  Timotheus  : 
— it  was  a  book  merely  for  instruction  ; 
then  what  signified  the  name  ?  &c — See 
Salvian  to  Salonius. 

5 2 


68  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  Xli.  5. 

a  professor  at  Hamburgh,  who  died  in  1736,  the  learned  I. 
author  of  the  Bibliotheca  Graeca,  and  Latina,  has  composed  a  97 
Codex  PseudepigraphuS)  containing  books  which  interfere 
with  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  a  Codex  Apocry- 
phus,  containing  books  which  interfere  with  the  canon  of  the 
New  Testament.  Mr.  Jeremiah  Jones  has  made  a  complete 
collection1  of  spurious  gospels,  &c.  with  English  translations; 
and  has  prefixed  to  them  sensible  and  acute  remarks.  Lardner 
has  taken  notice  of  the  subject  in  the  fifth  volume  of  his  works, 
and  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  sixth  volume. 
In  1699  Mr.  Toland  published  a  book  called  Amyntor,  in 
which  he  makes  all  possible  use  of  the  writings  here  spoken 
of,  to  overthrow  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament ; — the 
answer  by  John  Richardson  (once  Fellow  of  Emmanuel 
College)  lets  us  easily  into  this  part  of  theological  learning, 
and,  I  should  think,  must  satisfy  every  candid  judgment. 

5.  If  it  be  asked,  in  a  summary  way,  how  we  are  to 
clear  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  from  these  inferior 
compositions,  and  set  it  above  them,  as  of  divine  authority ; 
we  answer,  by  distinguishing  between  what  was  written  or 
authorized  by  Apostles,  and  all  other  writings ;  between  what 
was  reckoned  authentic,  and  what  was  thought  only  edifying ; 
between  what  was  quoted  as  proof,  and  what  was  quoted  on 
account  of  fine  sentiment  or  beautiful  expression,  as  we  quote 
from  Shakespear,  &c. ;  between  what  is  absurd  or  contra 
dictory,  and  what  is  rational  and  consistent ;  between  what  is 
supported  by  fanciful  heretics,  affecting  singularity  and 
novelty,  and  what  is  supported  by  the  most  numerous,  sober- 
minded,  and  learned  part  of  the  Church.  Other  criteria  may 
occur  in  reading  Richardson's  book,  or  that  of  Jones2. 

Hence  it  follows,  that  the  writings  here  spoken  of  do  not  98 
really  justify  the  infidel  in  rejecting  the  Scriptures.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  probable  that  infidels  generally  neglect  most 
of  the  distinctions  just  now  proposed  as  criteria;  which  clearly 
cannot  be  justified  :  but  it  may  suffice  to  refer  to  Lardner, 
who  has  treated  this  subject  in  the  place  above3  cited.  With 
regard  to  those  compositions,  which  would  be  most  disgraceful 
to  Christianity,  if  admitted  as  authentic,  he  observes,  that  these 
"books  were  not  much  used  by  the  primitive  Christians;" — 
that  they  confirm,  in  reality,  "  the  evangelical  history,"  as  they 

1  Leland,   speaking  of  Toland,   calls  -  Jones,  vol.  i.  p.  87. 

the  collection  complete.  3  Lard.  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  -Jl'2. 


I.  Xil.  6",  7-]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED.  69 

I.  are  forgeries,  affectations,  imitations ;  and,  of  course,  the  thing 
imitated  must  be  something  valuable  and  honourable  ;  they  also 
specify  the  names  of  Peter,  Paul,  &c. ;  nay,  they  profess  re 
spect  for  them.  "  Few  or  none  of  these  books  were  composed 
before  the  beginning  of  the  second  century."" — "  The  case  of 
the  Apostles  of  Christ  is  not  singular :"  "  divers  orations  were 
falsely  ascribed  to  Demosthenes  and  Lysias;" — Dinarchus, 
Plautus,  have  had  the  same  compliment  paid  to  them :  a  part 
of  criticism,  Greek  and  Roman,  is  employed  in  separating 
genuine  writings  from  spurious;  but  no  one  has  writings 
falsely  ascribed  to  him,  who  is  not  very  much  celebrated4. 

A  few  instances  are  wanted  here :  perhaps  the  Letter  to 
Jesus  Christ  from  Abgarus  king  of  Edessa,  might  be  one,  as  it 
has  been  thought  genuine.  Abgarus  was  a  name  (like  Ptolemy, 
Pharaoh,  &c.)  by  which  several  kings  of  Edessa  were  called. 
This  letter  and  the  answer  of  Christ  are  treated  by  Lardner5 
99  in  his  Testimonies,  and  by  J.  Jones; — other  instances  might 
be,  the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  as  that  has  been  spoken  of, 
Chap.  vi.  from  Jones7 ;  the  Gospel  of  our  Saviours  Infancy*, 

and  the  Gospel  of  Mary,  or  Protevangelion  of  James 9 

What  Dr.  Powell10  says  of  the  seven  controverted  pieces  may 
be  extended  to  the  best  of  these  :  "  the  chief  arguments  for 
the  truth  of  our  religion  are  not  connected  with  the  determina 
tions  of  these  nicer  questions  ;  the  history  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  and  the  proofs  of  their  divine  authority,  being  con 
tained  in  books  which  were  never  controverted." 

6.  Having  then,  as  we  should  hope,  removed  the  spurious 
and  apocryphal  writings  out  of  the  way,  or  pointed  out  the 
method  by  which  the  studious  may  remove  them,  let  us  go  on 
to  consider  the  genuineness  of  those  writings  which  we  judge 
to  have  apostolical  authority. 

7-  Our  business  here  is  properly  with  unbelievers ;  but 
it  may  be  right  to  mention,  that  some  sects  of  Christians  have 
declared  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  in  many 
places  corrupted.  The  Manicheans  did  this  in  the  greatest 
degree  ;  but  the  truth  of  the  matter  seems  to  be,  that  they 
allowed  every  thing  in  the  New  Testament,  which  did  not 


4  See,  besides  what  was  quoted  before, 
Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  536,  and  con 
tents  of  Chapter,  p.  493. 


*  Lard.  Works,  vn.  223.    Jer.  Jones,  Ibi(L  voL  "'  P'  1<JL 


vol.  ii.  beginning. 


6  See  Mosheim's  Tables  at  the  end  of 
his  Eccles.  History. 

7  Jones,  vol.  i.  p.  374. 


9  Ibid.  p.  270- 


10 


Powell's  Discourses,  p.  72. 


GENUINENESS    AND     AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  ?• 


interfere  with  their  own  peculiar  opinions.     They  allowed  our    I. 
Saviour's  parables,    discourses,    &c.    but   not  his  being  born 
of  a  material  substance,   nor   his  being  circumcised,  nor  his 
sacrificing    like    an  heathen,    nor    his  being   really   crucified. 
They  also  rejected  all  the  quotations  of  the  Old  Testament 
found  in  the  New ;  because  they  rejected  the  Old  Testament : 
all  these   they   rejected,  as  giving  an  account  of  nature  and 
of  Christ,  inconsistent  with  their  notions  of  the  evil  principle  100 
in  matter.     And  other  very  ancient  sects  of  Christians  acted 
in  the  same  manner,  on  similar  principles1. 

I  believe,  it  is  not  needful  for  us  to  say  more,  in  answer 
to  any  charge  of  ancient  sects  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
New  Testament.  They  could  not  say  that  Christ  or  his  apos 
tles  taught  any  thing  wrong,  or  any  thing  which  was  not 
of  divine  authority  ;  for  even  the  Manicheans  were  real  Chris 
tians  ;  so  that  they  had  nothing  for  it  but  saying,  that  any 
thing  which  they  could  not  admit  was  interpolated ;  but 
there  is  something  so  arbitrary  and  foolish  in  thus  condemn 
ing  every  thing  which  did  not  suit  their  preconceived  notions, 
and  erasing  it  at  once  out  of  the  sacred  code,  that  their  conduct 
will  scarce  be  followed  as  an  example2;  nevertheless,  if  any  one 
should  suspect  they  might  have  more  to  say  for  themselves 
than  we  now  allow,  he  may  consult  Augustin's  works ;  he  may 
see  what  Faustus  their  bishop  had  to  urge ;  and  he  may 
be  led  to  see,  what  is  of  more  consequence,  Augustus  fine 
writing  against  them.  Mr.  Richardson  has  translated,  and 
Dr.  Lardner  has  quoted,  some  passages  worthy  to  be  read  and 
admired  on  this  subject ;  which  indeed  go  farther  than  to 
answer  Faustus,  and  may  now  be  useful,  in  proving  the 
genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  against  in 
fidels.  An  additional  reason  why  we  do  not  enter  farther  into 
controversy  with  the  Manicheans,  and  other  sects,  though 
they  seem  to  come  directly  in  our  way,  is,  that  they  could  not 
be  said  to  deny  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  as  such ;  what 
ever  they  acknowledged  to  be  Scripture,  they  acknowledged  101 
to  be  divine :  and  the  parts  they  rejected,  must  have  amounted 
to  much  less  than  those  they  received.  Let  us  then  return  to 
our  reasoning  with  unbelievers. 


1  See  Lardner's  Heresies,  B.  i.  Sect. 
10,  or  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  250,  and  else 
where. 

a  Martin  Luther  wished  to  dispute  the 


authority  of  the  General  Epistle  of 
James,  because  it  pressed  hard  upon  his 
notion  of  Justification  by  Faith. 


I.  Xii.  8.J       OF  BOOKS  ACCOUNTED  SACRED.  *]\ 

I.  8.  In  reasoning  about  the  genuineness  of  any  writing, 
as  Rowley's  Poems,  the  'EiKwv  IWiXf/o;,  or  any  other,  we 
usually  dwell  much  on  internal  marks,  as  style,  expression, 
&c. ;  but  our  first  business  in  the  present  case  is,  to  consider 
the  external  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament — and  that  might  carry  us  into  discussions 
of  great  length.  In  order  to  keep  ourselves  as  unembarrassed 
as  may  be,  let  us  first  consider  the  form  and  nature  of  the 
argument,  before  we  enter  upon  such  particulars  as  may  come 
within  the  limits  of  our  present  undertaking. 

The  arguments  by  which  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  is  proved,  are  very  well  proposed  and 
expressed  in  Dr.  Powell's  4th  Discourse  :  I  do  not  take  the 
thoughts  quite  in  the  same  order,  but  dispose  them  with 
a  view  to  what  follows  in  these  lectures.  If  credit  is  to 
be  given  to  any  writings  that  are  ancient,  as  being  written 
by  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear,  because  they  come  down 
to  us  ascribed  to  those  persons,  credit  is  certainly  to  be  given 
to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  the  works  of  St. 
Matthew  and  the  other  sacred  writers ;  nay,  we  may  expect 
them  to  be  owned  as  genuine  more  readily  than  the  writings  of 
the  heathens,  because  more  persons  have  concurred  in  ascribing 
them  to  their  reputed  authors,  than  in  ascribing  works  to 
heathens:  and  those  more  dispersed  through  the  world,  and 
more  tempted  to  deny  their  genuineness.  As  to  the  identity  of 
the  books  in  question,  as  to  their  being  the  same  now  with 
those  of  which  the  ancients  spake,  we  cannot  doubt  it,  if  we 
102  think  on  the  number  of  manuscripts,  versions,  quotations,  and 
comments,  which  the  researches  of  learning  bring  to  our  view ; 
and  these  independent  of  each  other;  incapable  of  being 
conceived  the  effects  of  any  design  to  impose  upon  the  world. 
Neither  is  there  any  chasm,  or  interval,  during  which  the  tes 
timonies  of  which  we  speak  are  not  exhibited ;  they  begin  from 
the  personal  friends  and  acquaintance  of  the  writers,  from 
those  who  in  person  were  instructed  by  them,  and  are  con 
tinued  down  to  us  in  an  uninterrupted  succession.  Neither 
were  these  testimonies  given  only  to  those  of  the  same  party 
with  the  witnesses  themselves:  some  of  them  were  given  in 
the  most  public  manner  possible,  to  men  of  different  descrip 
tions  ;  they  were  received  with  approbation  by  an  innumerable 
company  of  friends ;  they  were  uncontradicted  even  by  ene 
mies.  Nay,  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 


72  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  9. 

ment  was  expressly  acknowledged  by  enemies  possessed  of  all   I. 
human  sources  of  information,  particularly  able  and  uncom 
monly  desirous  to  disprove  and  deny  it. 

9.  Such  is  the  form  and  nature  of  the  argument :  but 
a  student  will  wish  for  more  exact  and  particular  information  : 
he  must,  therefore,  be  put  into  a  way  to  acquire  it.  Our 
testimonies  come  from  friends,  or  enemies ; — the  friends  are 
the  Christians,  the  enemies  are  the  heathens :  though  there 
are  some  heathens,  whose  testimonies  can  scarce  be  called  that 
of  either  friends  or  professed  enemies ;  who  only  mention  cir 
cumstances  and  events,  as  they  happened  to  come  in  the  way. 

With  regard  to  the  testimonies  of  friends,  we  can  scarce 
take  a  better  method  than  explaining  the  nature  and  use  of 
Lardners  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History  :  adding  a  short 
account  of  his  ancient  Testimonies. 

He  begins  with  examining  the  facts  that  are  occasionally  103 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  such  as  the  acts  of  the 
governors  of  Judea,  the  tenets  of  the  Jewish  sects,  the  Roman 
customs,  &c.;  and  he  shews,  that  such  facts  are  agreeable  to 
what  is  recorded  by  the  best  ancient  historians  nearest  the 
time  spoken  of,  and  who  give  the  accounts  most  to  be  depended 
on  :  he  observes,  that  the  books  which  contain  these  facts 
were  believed ;  that  men  changed  their  religion,  in  consequence 

of  what  is  contained  in   them His  conclusion  is,  that  the 

sacred  writers  must  have  written  what  they  knew  ;  and  that, 
at  the  time  pretended,  viz.  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
which  happened  in  the  year  70 :  because  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  any  one  writer  to  have  copied  the  manners  of 
eight;  and  it  must  be  incredible,  that  eight  so  different,  so 
separated,  could  have  combined  together  to  deceive  the  world ; 
nay,  if  they  had,  that  they  could  have,  at  any  distance  of 
time,  composed  an  account  of  things  of  a  public  nature,  said 
to  have  happened  so  long  ago,  which  would  appear  so  like 
reality,  as  to  induce  people  to  make  any  important  changes  in 
their  way  of  life.  Then,  if  they  did  write  the  gospels  at  the 
time  pretended,  the  facts  must  have  been  TRUE  :  nobody  in 
such  a  case  could  have  admitted  false  facts;  at  least  not  such 
facts,  and  attended  with  such  consequences.  And,  if  the  facts 
related  in  the  gospels  are  true,  the  Christian  Revelation  must 
be  divine. — So  much  is  dispatched  in  one  volume : — the  con 
tents  of  it  rather  encroach  upon  some  subjects  to  be  treated 
hereafter,  but  our  account  of  the  work  before  us  ought  to  be 


I.  xii.  9.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED     SACRED.  *J3 

I.   complete This  one  volume  makes  ihejirst  part.    The  second 

part    consists    of    several  volumes :    it   is    intended   to    prove 
the  credibility  of  the  principal  facts  of  the  New  Testament  by 

104  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  Fathers :  of  all,  or  nearly  all  the 
Fathers  of  the  first  four  centuries,  and  of  the  chief  ones  down 
to  the  beginning  of  the  12th  century.      By  the  principal  facts 
of  the  New  Testament,  he  means  those  relating  to  St.  John 

Baptist,   Jesus  Christ,  his  Apostles,  &c His  method  is  to 

give  first  a  short  history  of  each  Father,  referring  to  others, 
who  give  one  more  full :   then  to  discuss  any  thing  singular  in 
the  character,  writings,  opinions  of  that  Father,  and  clear  up 
any  doubts  about  them  ;   then  lastly,  having  thus  thrown  all 
light  upon  the  testimony,  and  set  it  in  a  right  point  of  view,  to 
produce  the  testimony  itself; — that  is,  to  shew  what  Scriptures 
that    Father  owned,  ^quoted,  alluded    to :    this   he  does   with 
very  commodious  recapitulations,  and  other  helps  of  divisions, 
indexes,  &c. 

To  this  is  added  a  copious  and  elaborate  Supplement, 
in  which  he  treats  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  of 
every  thing  relating  to  the  publication  of  it ;  and  gives  very 
good  accounts  of  the  lives  of  the  eight  writers  :  which  lives 
are  excellent  helps  towards  understanding  their  works. 

There  is  besides,  his  ancient  testimonies  of  Jews  and 
heathens ;  in  which  he  quotes  every  thing  in  Jewish  and 
heathen  antiquity  that  has  any  relation  to  Christianity  ;  after 
setting  it  in  a  right  light,  by  letting  his  reader  into  all  circum 
stances  of  time,  place,  and  the  characters  of  the  authors. 
Pliny  writes  about  Christians ;  who  was  Pliny  ?  what  kind  of 
man  ?  in  what  station  ?  when  ?  where  ?  do  his  writings  go  for 
or  against  Christianity  ?  &c. — What  knowledge  of  Christianity 
do  they  shew  ?  Such  are  the  questions  which  he  answers. 

The  manner  of  this  writer  gives  me  pleasure,  as  well  as 
satisfaction  ;  he  is  clear,  easy,  accurate,  and  candid  :  he  has 

105  been1  called  "the  laborious  Lardner,"  and  laborious  he  must 
have  been ;   but  yet  he  never  seems  to  me  to  labour ;   he  is 
always  smooth  and  unembarrassed  ;  you  go  through  a  volume 
without  feeling  any  fatigue ;   reading  half  a  pamphlet  of  some 
men's  writing  would  require  a  much  greater  effort.      I  would 
observe   of   him,   more   particularly,   that   when   he  quotes   a 
passage  out  of  an  ancient  Father,  you  are  at  first  shocked  and 

1  By  Bp.  Hallifax.     Lardner  himself  I  AVarburton   and  others.     See  Lardner's 
uses   "laborious"   as   a    compliment  to    |  Works,  vol.  vnr.  p.  383. 


74  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  10,  1 1. 

disgusted  with  something  superstitious  or  weak  in  it ;  but,  I. 
when  he  comes  to  take  it  to  pieces,  and  shew  the  circumstances 
in  which  it  was  written,  you  recover  your  feelings,  and  gene 
rally  your  esteem  for  the  Father ;  for,  if  you  still  think  the 
passage  faulty  in  itself  in  some  respects,  you  have  learnt  how 
to  make  proper  allowances.  This  remark  may  properly 
enough  introduce  the  subject  which  is  next  to  be  treated ; 
namely,  the  views  with  which  we  are  to  peruse  those  ancient 
Christian  writers,  who  are  usually  called  the  Fathers. 

10.  The  imperfections   of  the   Fathers,   we    affirm,  have 
occasioned  their  hieing  read  with  too  little  attention.     This  has 
not  always  been  the  case ;  in  some  ages,  too  much  attention 
has  been  paid  them :  but  in  all  ages,  I  think,  some  knowledge 
of  them  has  been  accounted  a  qualification  of  the  divine :  and 
in  all  controversies,   I  believe,  each  party  has  wished  to  have 
the  Fathers1  on  his  side.     It  seems  an  unaccountable  thing 
beforehand,  that  men  of  literature  should  have  engaged  them 
selves  totally  in  the  cause  of  Christianity,  should  have  written 
copiously  and   fervently  in   defence   of  its  doctrines,  so  as  to 
excite  the  admiration  of  their  own  times,  and  yet  that  their 
works  should  not  now  be  worth  looking  into : — on  the  other 
hand,  that  mere  men  should  be  followed  implicitly,  in  spite 
of  the  improvements  of  later  ages  in  knowledge,  human  and 
divine,  is  a  thing  not  rashly  to  be  admitted.      If  then  we  are  10(5 
neither  to  neglect  the  Fathers,  nor  let  their  judgment  supersede 
our  own,  what  notion  are  we  to  entertain  of  their  merits  at  this 
time?      In  order  to  get  some  satisfaction  on  this  question,  let 

us  consider  the  Fathers  in  four  different  lights  : 
As  records  of  Christian  antiquity. 
As  preachers  of  Christian  virtue. 
As  expositors  of  holy  writ. 
As  defenders  of  the  true  Christian  doctrine. 

11.  As  repositories  of  antiquity r,  they  are  certainly  well 
worth  reading ;  there  is  no  practice  of  the  ancient  Christian 
churches   which   may   not  be   made  useful  in   modern    times, 
if  rightly   applied,    allowing  for  difference  of  circumstances  ; 
and    even    spurious  and  anonymous   works  may   answer   our 
purpose  here,  nearly  as  well  as  those  that  are  genuine,  so  long 
as  we  are  not  deceived  as  to  the  time  when  any  sentence  or 
passage   was  really    written.      Christians    are  to  improve    by 
experience,  as  well  as  other  men  ;    and  experience  can  only 

1  Monthly  Review  for  June  1783.  Art.  7,  beginning. 


I.  Xii.    12.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED.  *J5 

I.  be  had  from  past  events.  Amongst  things  particularly  to  be 
noticed,  we  may  mention,  1.  Ancient  customs,  as,  suppose, 
ceremonies  of  ordination,  baptism,  Lord's  Supper,  ranks  of 

officers,  discipline,  &c.  &c 2.  Ancient  doctrines  or  opinions, 

such  as  those  concerning  the  nature  and  dignity  of  Christ ; 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  his  assistance,  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  ;  concerning  the  divine  government  and  decrees ; 
the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  &c.  What  those  opinions 
were,  is  entirely  a  separate  inquiry  from  what  they  ought 
to  have  been. — 3.  We  should  notice  ancient  scriptures^  or 
what  books  were  referred  to  by  each  Father ;  what  as  authentic, 
what  as  only  useful,  pious,  or  virtuous:  in  this  part  of  our 
study  of  the  Fathers,  the  principal  caution  regards  the  doc- 
107  trines.  When  men  speak  on  any  subject,  without  foreseeing 
disputes,  they  use  words  with  less  care  than  they  would  do  if 
actually  engaged  in  disputes:  and,  when  words  so  used  are 
afterwards  quoted,  those  who  used  them  seem  to  have  meant 
more  than  they  really  did  :  they  are  brought  as  favouring  one 
side  or  the  other,  when  they  really  favoured  neither ;  nor  had 
any  idea,  properly  speaking,  of  the  question  in  debate... 
Trinitas  did  not  at  first  imply  what  we  now  mean  by  Trinity. 

The  agreement2  of  all  the  Fathers,  extremely  dissentient  in 
lesser  matters,  on  the  great  points  of  redemption,  sanctification, 
immortality,  must  be  a  very  strong  argument  in  favour  of 
Christianity  and  its  fundamental  doctrines. 

12.  As  preachers  of  Christian  virtue,  we  may  now  read  the 
Fathers,  in  many  parts,  with  great  profit,  if  we  enter  upon  the 
work  with  a  right  idea  of  them. — The  Christian  religion  was 
to  them  every  thing :  they  devoted  themselves  to  it  with  heart 
and  soul:  their  devout  affections  were  excited  and  inflamed 
to  a  degree  not  now  often  observable  in  ordinary  life :  this 
being  their  character,  when  we  read  their  pious  meditations, 
their  praises  of  virtue,  and  their  exhortations  to  sanctity,  we 
may  catch  a  spirit  of  piety  and  virtue,  which  we  in  vain  should 
attempt  to  attain  amidst  the  embarrassments  of  business,  or 
the  dissipations  of  pleasure. 

But,  if  we  confide  in  the  Fathers  as  understanding  virtue 
very  systematically,  we  may  be  deceived.  God  leaves  virtue  to 
improve  gradually,  as  well  as  other  things.  The  Fathers  are 
to  be  conceived  as  having  explained  the  practical  virtue  and 

2  Que  parmi  tant  de  diversitez  ils  ado-  j  une  mesme  sanctification,  esperent  tous 
rent  tous  un  mesme  Christ,  pressent  tous  I  une  mesme  immortality.    Daille,  p.  518. 


76  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY          [I.  Xli.  13. 

piety  of  the  Gospel,  or  as  having  applied  general  precepts  to  I. 
particular  cases,  according  to  the  state  of  morality  established  108 
in  their  own  times  respectively ;  but  we  have  not  ground  for 
saying,  that  they  gave  themselves  to  estimating  the  conse 
quences  of  actions  by  observation  or  experiment,  and  thereby 
improving  the  received  morality,  and  forming  new  rules  of 
virtue;  or  to  refining  and  directing  the  moral  sense.  Hence 
some  things  which  they  approved  might  now  be  disapproved ; 
and  every  thing  ought  to  be  examined.  Our  business  then  is 
to  catch  the  ivarmth  of  their  virtue  and  piety ;  and,  allowing 
for  the  imperfections  incident  to  the  times  in  which  they  lived, 
to  make  that  warmth  operate  to  the  greatest  possible  advantage 
in  our  own  times. — If  we  could  make  the  people  feel  at  this 
time,  what  Ambrose  made  the  people  feel  at  Milan,  or  Gregory 
at  Nazianzum,  or  Leo  the  Great  at  Rome,  or  John  Chrysostom 
at  Constantinople,  and  then  direct  them  with  our  most  im 
proved  morality,  we  might  do  great  service  to  the  cause  of 
virtue,  that  is,  to  the  happiness  of  mankind.  To  quote  par 
ticulars,  would  carry  us  into  too  great  length ;  but,  I  think, 
there  are  religious  and  moral  passages  in  some  of  the  Fathers, 
which  are  truly  beautiful  and  greatly  affecting.  I  shall  rather 
produce  and  recommend  them  occasionally,  than  systematically. 

13.  As  expositors  of  Scripture  we  may  profit  by  the 
Fathers,  if  we  are  aware  of  their  imperfections,  and  do  not 
expect  that  from  them  which  they  could  not  have.  What 
was  said  before  is  now  again  applicable :  the  Fathers  applied 
themselves  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  with  undivided 
attention,  with  intense  thought  and  holy  admiration,  as  to  what 
was  alone  worthy  to  be  studied.  No  part  of  Scripture  was 
neglected  by  them  ;  they  were  so  earnestly  intent  upon  it,  that 
not  a  jot  or  tittle  escaped  them.  This,  with  the  advantages 
they  had  in  point  of  languages1  and  antiquities,  could  not  fail  109 
to  produce  remarks,  which  it  must  be  very  imprudent  in  any 
age  to  neglect.  Criticism  improves  indeed,  in  the  same 
natural  progression  with  other  things ;  there  is  no  kind  of 
mental  improvement  which  does  not  improve  criticism  :  polite 
arts  refine  our  feelings  and  taste,  science  our  judgment;  and 
reflex  observations  on  these  improvements,  and  other  pheno 
mena  of  human  nature,  improve  both  taste  and  understanding. 

It  may  be  thought,   that   this   is  representing  taste   and 
criticism  as  in  a  more  advanced  state  now,  than  in  the  Augus- 

1  It  is  not  meant  here,  that  the  Latin  Fathers  understood  Greek  well. 


I.  xii.   14.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED.  77 

I  tan  age:  I  believe,  they  are;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  settle 
that  matter.  We  have  no  scriptural  comments  of  the  Augustan 
age:  if  we  could  have  had,  they  would  probably  have  been 
valuable;  but,  before  the  principal  of  our  comments  were 
written,  taste  had  degenerated ;  and  the  Scriptures  had  seem 
ingly  been  read  with  too  little  critical  skill  and  attention. 
More  of  that  skill  might  have  prevented  that  excess  of 
allegorical  interpretation  into  which  some  ancients  ran :  they 
were  probably  led  into  it  by  studying  with  a  warm  imagina 
tion,  prophecies,  and  types,  and  parables,  and  allusions ;  by 
our  Saviour's  not  opening  the  whole  of  his  plan  during  his 
lifetime  ; — but  it  is  our  business  to  determine,  as  nearly  as 
we  are  able,  when  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  should  be 
plain,  and  when  it  should  be  understood  as  implying  something 
beyond  the  letter. 

The  result  is,  we  must  expect  to  find  modern  criticism 
fall  in  more  with  our  modern  notions  than  ancient;  and  in 
many  cases,  we  have  really  improved  upon  the  ancient,  though 
sometimes  by  its  assistance.  But  still  we  must  be  aware,  that 
there  may  be  fashionable  errors  at  any  time;  and  that  the 
110  ideas  which  are  familiar  to  us,  when  we  hear  certain  expres 
sions,  were  not  always  what  those  expressions  would  have 
suggested  in  our  Saviour's  time.  Be  it  that  Mr.  Locke  has 
best  explained  St.  Paul's  epistles2:  his  explanation  may  not 
supersede  all  attention  to  remarks  of  the  ancients  on  particular 
passages.  Were  anyone  about  to  see  whether  Mr.  Locke  could  not 
be  improved  upon,  I  apprehend  he  should  consult  the  ancients 
occasionally ;  though  possibly  they  may  afford  greater  help  on 
other  parts  of  Scripture  than  on  those  which  Mr.  Locke  has 
explained. 

14.  As  defenders  of  the  pure  Christian  faith,  or,  in  other 
words,  as  polemic  divines,  the  Fathers  may  still  be  read  with 
improvement :  for  some  old  heresies  seem  to  be  extinct,  when 
the  seeds  of  them  remain,  ready  to  spring  forth  at  any  time. 
The  causes  of  heresies  seem  permanent :  such  as  abhorrence 
of  particular  tenets;  perplexity  about  some  mysterious  doc 
trine  ;  tenderness  for  sinners ;  zeal  for  scripture,  for  reason, 
for  the  honour  of  the  Deity ;  desire  of  novelty ;  pride  of 
taking  the  lead.  Most  heresies  have  arisen  from  one  or  other 
of  these  causes  ;  and  these  causes  may,  at  any  future  time, 
produce  the  same  effects  with  some  trifling  variations.  But 

-  Dr.  Balmily,  Charge  1st.  (p.  17 ">•'*• 


GENUINENESS    AND     AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  14. 


even  those  ancient  heretical  notions,  which  have  so  decayed  I. 
that  they  occasion  no  wars  or  violent  contentions  at  present, 
are  opposed  in  creeds  and  other  confessions  of  faith :  these 
ought  to  be  understood;  and  we  find  very  nearly  the  same 
notions  every  now  and  then  breaking  out  into  controversy.  In 
such  a  case,  it  is  very  useful  to  be  able  to  trace  the  deviations 
of  the  human  mind  through  a  succession  of  ages:  an  error 
thus  traced  has  a  very  different  appearance  from  the  same 
error  seen  only  at  one  single  time.  I  should  think  it  would  111 
be  acknowledged,  from  the  passages  which  occur  in  Bishop 
Pearson  on  the  Creed,  that  the  ancients  express  themselves  well 
on  controverted  subjects,  and  shew  a  depth  and  clearness  of 
reasoning,  where  the  question  requires  it. 

There  is,  however,  an  acrimony  in  the  ancient  controver 
sialists,  which  we  may  pardon  sometimes,  but  which  we  ought 
never  to  imitate:  we  may  pardon  it,  when  it  seems  to  arise 
from  a  zeal  for  what  is  good,  though  a  zeal  not  founded  in 
knowledge.  Men  taking  for  granted  the  justness  of  their 
opinions,  fancy  that  they  ought  to  treat  all  opposition  to  them 
as  treason  to  the  Majesty  of  God;  as  insult  upon  his  Son: 
whereas,  two  men  cannot  in  reality  be  contending  about  any 
thing  more  than  the  comparative  value  of  two  human  judge 
ments  ;  they  can  only  weigh  fallibility  against  fallibility :  and, 
since  every  church  has  a  right  to  judge  for  itself,  no  attack 
should  be  used  on  one  side  which  should  not  be  allowed  on  the 
other.  Possibly  those  Fathers  who  indulged  too  much  acri 
mony,  might  follow  unthinkingly  what  they  find  in  the  Old 
Testament  about  severity  to  idolatrous  nations ;  or  some 
terms  of  reproach  used  in  the  New :  but,  if  they  did,  they  did 
not  consider  sufficiently  difference  of  circumstances. — When, 
therefore,  we  consult  the  Fathers,  with  a  view  to  controversy, 
we  may  apply  their  arguments,  as  far  as  they  are  applicable 
to  the  question,  avoiding  their  acrimonious  invectives1. 
When  we  compare  a  modern  controversy  with  an  ancient  one, 
we  discern  frequently  from  what  common  cause  they  pro 
ceeded ;  and  seeing  that,  as  it  enlarges  our  views,  has  a  112 
tendency  to  abate  contention. — As  a  corollary,  we  may  remark, 
that  we  ought  to  be  very  cautious  of  adopting  any  accounts  of 


1  It  is  but  justice  to  allow,  that  there 
cannot  be  a  finer  precept  about  contro 
versy  than  that  of  Augustin's  quoted  by 
Lardner,  from  No.  4.  of  Contr.  Epist. 


Fundationis. — See  Lardner's  Works,  vol. 
in.  p.  545.  The  passage  immediately 
before  it  is  also  very  good :  "  Illi  in  vos 
sajviant,"  &c. 


I.  xil.  15.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED.  79 

I.  the  tenets  of  heretics  from  their  adversaries.  I  fear  the 
cases  are  much  too  numerous  in  which  this  caution  would  be 
useful. 

15.  And  now,  if  we  review  our  directions  about  reading 
the  Fathers,  we  shall  find  them  reducible  to  one: — We  must 
make  allowances  for  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Fathers 
wrote.  If  we  follow  this  direction,  we  shall  find  an  apology 
for  what  has,  in  fact,  occasioned  the  greatest  dislike  to  them ; 
and  that  is,  their  recounting  superstitious  stories  of  miracles, 
and  spirits,  and  judgments.  The  charge  seems  something 
of  this  sort ; — either  the  Fathers  believed  the  stories,  or  not ; 
if  they  believed  them,  they  were  weakly  credulous;  if  not, 
they  were  false  and  deceitful.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that 
they  were  guilty,  in  some  degree,  of  both  these  faults :  some 
times  they  were  too  credulous,  sometimes  they  gave  into  a 
degree  of  pious  fraud.  Can  this  be  allowed,  and  yet  any 
sufficient  apology  be  made  for  them  ?  let  us  try ;  first,  with 
regard  to  pious  fraud ;  then  with  regard  to  credulity. 

As  to  pious  fraud,  it  might  take  place  either  when  they 
partly  believed,  or  when  they  could  not  be  said  to  believe  at 
all.  When  men  partly  believe,  they  can  deceive  themselves, 
so  as  to  lessen  their  blame  of  themselves,  especially  when 
their  insincerity  is  all  intended  to  promote  the  cause  of  reli 
gion.  In  a  fit  of  zeal,  not  only  religious,  but  political,  or 
even  scientific  men,  are  often  capable  of  admitting  a  great  deal 
of  sophistry ;  they  neglect  to  sift  their  motives  of  conduct, 
and  push  forward  towards  their  desired  end.  I  do  not  say 
this  is  right,  but  it  is  what  men  often  do  who  are  generally 
113  accounted  men  of  good  character:  it  is  only  on  this  footing 
the  Fathers  are  in  some  degree  excusable;  because  they  are 
no  worse  than  other  grave  and  regular  men.  Suppose  that, 
•in  some  cases,  they  cannot  be  said  to  believe  even  in  part, 
then  it  seems  more  difficult  to  excuse  them.  But  we  can  say, 
that  pious  fraud  must  have  had  great  power  of  seducing,  when 
it  was  little  blamed ;  indeed,  we  seldom  expect  more  of  men 
than  that  they  should  follow  established  maxims  of  virtue. 
Mosheim*  tells  us,  that  the  Platonists  (Christians  so  called,  as 
I  understand)  "  asserted  the  innocence  of  defending  the  truth 
by  artifice  and  falsehood  ;"  and  "  this  method  "  "  was"  "  almost 
universally  approved."  Nay,  it  was  so  established,  as  to  have 
a  name ;  to  do  a  thing  on  this  footing  was  to  do  it  economi- 

5  Cent.  3.  Part  n.  Chap.  m.  Sect.  10.  8vo.  vol.  i.  p.  282. 


80  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY  [I.  xii.  16. 

cally1,  /car*  oiKoi'ofjLiav.  Those  who  fell  short  of  this  degree  of  I. 
falsehood,  might  yet  imagine,  that,  if  they  could  any  way 
convert  a  sinner,  heaven  would  reward  them  ;  or  that  the 
sinner  himself  would  be  thankful,  as  a  man  is  who  has  been 
cheated  into  a  place  of  safety  when  he  was  intoxicated.  In 
common  life  we  often  find  things  tending  this  way.  Con 
noisseurs  in  paintings,  antiquities,  &c.  are  sometimes  thieves 
and  corrupters  of  servants,  &c.  if  they  be  not  misrepresented : 
those  who  preside  in  a  national  religion  are  apt  to  have  views 
to  the  effects  of  truth,  instead  of  desiring  the  truth  simply, 
and  to  encourage  any  popular  defences  of  their  own  tenets. 
Reasons  of  state  might  be  mentioned  here.  When  a  man 
feels  his  enthusiasm  successful,  there  springs  up  in  his  mind  a 
wish  to  make  some  political  use2  of  it,  &c. 

16.    But    to    come    to    the    charge    of   credulity Now  114 

credulity  at  one  time  should  not  be  judged  by  light  obtained 
at  a  subsequent  time.  Incredulity  is  the  very  same  fault 
with  credulity ;  both  consist  in  preferring  a  lower  degree  of 
probability  to  an  higher :  to  avoid  both  is  to  judge  as  well  as 
possible  in  given  circumstances :  it  seems,  therefore,  as  if  it 
would  be  a  complete  vindication  of  the  Fathers,  if  the  wisest 
men  of  their  times  were  as  credulous  as  themselves3.  The 
elder  Pliny,  who  wrote  the  Natural  History,  died  about  the 
year  79:  the  younger  Pliny,  flourished  early  in  the  second 
century :  Lardner  makes  him  to  be  in  his  province  of  Pontus 
and  Bithynia  from  106  to  108. — Plutarch  died  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century ;  and  the  emperor  Julian  after 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  : — these  men  were  in  high  estimation, 
and  yet  their  superstition  and  credulity  seem  to  have  been 
equal  to  those  of  the  Christian  Fathers.  Even  Lucian,  that 
great  ridiculer  of  superstitious  folly,  seems  to  have  had  a 
vision,  when  he  wanted  to  run  away  from  his  master:  his 
master  was  a  statuary,  and  his  uncle. 

Pliny  senior  was  so  superstitious,  that  his  editor  Hardouin 
speaks  of  his  superstition  as  a  topic  in  the  preface,  (not  far 
from  the  end,)  and  makes  an  apology  for  it,  which  adds  to  the 
force  of  our  argument ;  namely,  that  other  authors  had  recorded 
as  strange  things  as  he.  He  speaks  (Nat.  Hist.  2.  30.)  of 

1  Gataker  ad  M.  Antonini  lib.  xi.  p.  j    with  enthusiasm. 

330,  &c quoted  in  Mosheim,  ibidem.  a  See  Hume's  Natural  History  of  Re- 

*  Bishop  Warburton  somewhere  talks  ligion,  Sect.  12.  p.  404,  Mvo,  about  the 

of  the  roguery  that  is  apt  to  mix  itself  i   superstition  of  I'owpei/,  >S.c. 


I.   xii.    16.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED. 


81 


I.  eclipses,  as  owing  to  Caesar's  death,  and  the  Antonine  war ; 
and  as  having  continued  in  some  degree  almost  a  year.  At 
the  opening  of  the  second  book  he  calls  the  world  a  deity ; 
he  speaks  (lib.  vu.  cap.  52,  or  53)  of  dead  people's  reviving, 

115  and  makes  a  general  observation,    "haec  est  conditio  morta- 
lium." — "  Faeminarum  sexus,"   says  he,  "  huic  malo  videtur 
maxime  opportunus,"  that  is,  for  lying  dead  a  long  time  before 
reviving ; — and  then  he  adds  a  foolish  reason,  taken  from  the 
corrugation  of  the  uterus,   (p.  408  of  vol.  i.  Hardouin.) 

Pliny  junior  was  extremely  superstitious.  For  a  proof  of 
this,  it  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  refer  to  his  Epistle  to  Sura4, 
describing  some  as  good  ghosts  as  ever  old  woman  believed  in ; 
and  professing  himself  inclined  to  give  credit  to  them  ;  or  rather, 
saying  that  he  does  give  credit  to  them,  though  he  desires  the 
judgment  of  his  correspondent.  More  instances  of  his  super 
stition  are  to  be  found  in  Lardner's  ancient  Testimonies5. 

Plutarch  admits  the  same  train  of  ideas  with  Pliny  senior. 
In  Bishop  Pearson6  on  the  Creed,  we  have  an  expression 
quoted  from  a  treatise  intitled,  in  Latin,  "De  his  qui  sero 
puniuntur,"  in  which  we  find  the  following  story,  (pretty 
near  the  end.)  Thespesius,  who  belonged  to  Soli  (in  Cyprus, 
or  Cilicia,)  had  been  very  vicious,  and  had  been  told  by  an 
oracle  that  he  would  be  better  after  he  had  been  dead.  He 
fell  from  an  height  and  dislocated  his  neck,  and  revived  the 
third  day,  just  as  they  were  going  to  bury  him. 

Julian's  superstition  seeems  to  have  appeared  chiefly  in 
his  great  anxiety  about  sacrificing  to  the  heathen  deities. 

116  The  account  of  it  in  Lardner's  Testimonies  seems  sufficient, 
and  to  that  therefore  I  will  refer7. 

I  might  mention  Socrates8  and  Plato9,  had  they  not  lived 


4  Plin.  Ep.  lib.  vu.  ep.  27. 

5  Works,  vol.  vu.  p.  330. 

6  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  p.  528,  4to,  or 
p.  261,  fol.  Art.  5,  about  Third  day. 

By  looking  into  Lardner's  Testimonies, 
many  instances  might  be  found  of  super 
stitious  stories  in  sensible  heathen  writ 
ers  of  the  4th  century,  &c.  Not  to 
mention  Philostratus,  who  might  have 
a  design,  see  Lardner's  Articles  (Works, 
vol.  ix.)  of  Zosimus,  Marinus,  and  Da- 
mascius. 

7  Vol.  in.  p.  26. 

8  I  think  Socrates  should  not  be  pass 
ed  over ;  the  best  account  of  his  being  su- 

VOL.  I. 


perstitious,  according  to  the  superstition 
of  his  age,  is,  I  should  think,  in  Nares's 
Essay  on  his  Demon.  London,  1782.  See 
particularly  note  (H),  where  the  credu 
lity  of  several  great  men  is  mentioned. 
And  in  note  (K)  Xenophon  is  added  to 
the  number.  P.  8.  Mr.  Nares  lays  it 
down  as  a  proposition  to  be  proved  by 
him,  "  That  a  single  instance  of  error,  or 
of  superstition,  is  by  no  means  incom- 
patable  with  the  character  even  of  the 
greatest  and  best  of  men."  He  has  no 
view  to  any  Christians,  in  proving  this. 

9  De  Rep.  lib.  x.  p.  761.  Ed.  Franc. 
1G02. 


82 


GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY          [I.  xii.  16. 


too  long  before  the  Fathers;  I  might  mention  Porphyry1  I. 
and  others,  would  it  not  carry  us  too  far :  they  were  all  what 
we  should  now  call  superstitious ;  and  yet  it  is  always  tacitly 
taken  for  granted,  when  the  superstition  of  the  ancient  Chris 
tians  is  blamed,  or  ridiculed,  that  these  men,  of  whom  I  have 
been  speaking,  were  free  from  superstition. 

Not  that  I  would  be  understood  to  undervalue  the  classical 
authors  in  those  things  for  which  we  admire  them ;  or  par 
ticularly  to  blame  them,  or  even  the  adversaries  of  Christianity, 
for  their  weakness.  Aristotle  understood  many  things  relating 
to  man,  as  well  as  we  do  now ;  I  would  not  neglect  those 
things,  because  he  could  not  account  for  the  phenomena  of 
the  rainbow2:  if  he  talked  about  the  rainbow,  like  other 
knowing  men  of  his  time,  he  talked  well  enough.  And 
whoever  talks  about  ghosts  and  witches3  and  prodigies,  like 
those  of  his  own  time,  who  are  best  informed,  is  not  to  be 
thought  deficient4  in  understanding.  There  is  nothing  im-  117 
possible  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  we  know  of,  in  accounts 
of  spirits,  &c.  Their  incredibility  arises  from  a  long  train  of  ex 
perience  ;  nay,  even  now,  many  people  of  very  good  understand 
ings,  that  is,  capable  of  any  reasoning,  are  superstitious ; 
and  many  of  weak  understandings  are  free  from  superstition ; 
on  what  this  depends,  may  not  yet  be  perfectly  decided. — 
We  conclude,  then,  that  the  Fathers  are  not  to  be  thought 
wholly  unworthy  of  attention,  on  account  of  their  credulity. 

Nevertheless  it  must  be  owned  that  some  of  their  stories 
want  all  sorts  of  apologies,  though  possibly  there  are  none 
of  them  which  may  not  be  excused  one  way  or  another,  so 
as  to  prevent  harm  to  Christianity,  and  take  off  any  argument 
against  it.  I  feel  myself  most  affected  when  the  Fathers 
speak  of  strange  events  as  having  come  within  their  own 
knowledge :  here,  I  suppose  the  case  to  have  been,  that  they 
were  earnest  to  receive  accounts,  and  ready  to  admit  evidence 
seeming  to  support  their  holy  cause ;  and  we  know  that 
evidence  will  be  offered  and  persisted  in  whenever  it  is  likely 
to  be  well  received.  By  accepting  such  evidence,  the  ancient 
Fathers  have  certainly  left  their  successors  a  difficult  task ;  I 


1  Lardner.     Old  Stories  in  the  Life  of 
Pythagoras :  perhaps  only  adopted,  and 
handed  forward  by  Porphyry. 

2  Might  not  this  be  extended  to  Afo- 
ses? 

3  Bp.  Jewel  was  superstitious  about 


witches.     Middleton's   Inquiry,  p.  221. 
Note. 

4  Bp.  Fisher  and  others  believed  the 
Holy  Maid  of  Kent  to  be  a  prophetess : — 

see  Middleton's  Inquiry,  p.  118 Qu. 

Did  they  not  sometimes  suspect — a  little  ? 


I.  Xli.  16.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED     SACRED.  83 

I.  mean,  that  of  clearing  the  reality  from  all  that  rubbish  under 
which  it  is  buried.  But  the  incidental  good  of  this  evil  may 
be  great :  it  may  induce  us  to  study  what  we  might  have 
neglected :  in  the  present  state  of  things,  as  there  must  be 
:<  heresies,  so  there  must  be  doubt  and  labour.  The  ancients 
seem  more  easy  to  be  defended  than  those  fi  moderns  who  have 

118  adopted   many  of  their  superstitions.      Though   we   were   to 
grant  that  Dr.  Jortin's  idea  of  Paulinus7  might  be  taken  as 
a  sort  of  abstract  idea  of  a  Father,  yet  we  must  affirm,  with 
Bishop  Hallifax^^  that  such  a  person  deserves  credit  with  re 
gard  to  facts.     A  farmer  who  believed  in  ghosts  (in  the  l6th 
century  if  you  please)  might  give  a  suspected  account  of  them, 
and  yet  a  credible  account  of  common  facts. 

I  should  hope  that  what  has  been  said  would  prevent  in- 
'fidelity  from  being  the  consequence  of  reading  Dr.  Middletori's 
Inquiry  into  the  miraculous  powers:  it  might  also  tend  to 
obviate  the  bad  effects  of  a  modern  work,  called  an  Essay  on 
Old  Maids ;  especially  if  these  remarks  on  credulity  were 
joined  with  what  is  said  on  celibacy,  under  the  32d  Article  of 
the  Church  of  England,  on  the  Marriage  of  Priests9. 

•  Before  we  close  this  subject  of  the  ancient  Christian 
Fathers,  we  should  mention  the  work  of  Mons.  Daille,  a  minister 
of  the  French  reformed  church,  pretty  early  in  the  last  cen 
tury.  His  view  is,  to  shew  that  the  Romanists  pride  them 
selves  too  much  on  the  supposed  agreement  of  the  Fathers 
with  their  opinions.  With  this  view,  Mons.  Daille  shews 
with  what  restrictions  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  ought  to 
be  allowed.  He  first  marks  out  several  difficulties  in  ascertain 
ing  any  sense  which  can  properly  be  called  the  sense  of 
the  Fathers ;  and  then  shews,  that  if  such  sense  or  opinion 
could  be  ascertained,  there  would  be  good  reason  to  think  it 

119  fallible.      In   doing  this  he  shews  great  learning  and  a  good 
understanding;     but    he    speaks    too   much    as    an    advocate, 
and  is  not  averse  to  making  an    argument  on   his  own   side 
strong,  and  on  his  adversary's  weak.     Towards  the  conclusion 
lie  says  handsome  things  in  favour  of  the  Fathers,  but  they 


1  Cor.  xi.  19. 

Cave,  Tillemont. 

Remarks,  in.  p.  145. 

On  Proph.  p.  198. 

Perhaps  the  instances  of  prodigies 
about  Julian  might  be  as  much  to  the 
purpose  as  any,  in  this  place ;  see  Lard. 


Works,  vol.  viii.  p.  366,  where  we  see 
how  freely  Lardner  declares  the  Fathers 
unworthy  of  credit.  Their  zeal,  or  de 
testation  of  Julian,  worked  up  by  de 
grees,  made  them  so  in  the  present  in 
stance:  we  must  try  every  evidence,  as 
well  as  every  spirit. 

6—2 


GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY         [I.  xii.  17- 


are  compressed  into  too  small  a  compass  to  have  an  effect.    Had  I. 
he  quoted  as  many  instances   to   support  his   commendations 
as  his  restrictions  (which  I  think  he  might  have   done),  he 
would  have  made  his  work  more  pleasing,  and  more  generally 
useful,  and  he  would  have  done  more  justice  to  his  subject. 

17.  We  must  now  recollect,  that  our  immediate  concern 
is  proving  the  genuineness  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  by  external  testimony ; — and  that  we  proposed  to  bring 
as  witnesses,  first  our  friends,  and  secondly  our  enemies. 
Having  put  the  student  into  a  way  of  examining  and  receiving 
the  testimony  of  friends  to  Christianity,  we  must  now  give 
some  account  of  its  adversaries. 

The  three  principal  are  Celsus,  Porphyry,  and  Julian :  and 
these  three  are  mentioned  sometimes  without  any  others1. 
Celsus  is  placed  by  Lardner  so  early  as  the  year  1?6;  but  no 
country  is  mentioned  where  he  lived.  Indeed,  nothing  more 
seems  to  be  said  of  him  than  that  he  was  an  Epicurean 
philosopher.  He  was  probably  the  Celsus  to  whom  Lucian 
addressed  his  Pseudomantis :  he  wrote  an  elaborate  work,  the 
only  work  we  know  of  his,  professedly  against  the  Christians, 
called  Ao7os  aXtjOtjs,  the  true  Word:  this  Origen  answered  in 
a  work,  divided  into  eight  books.  We  have  not  the  objec 
tions  themselves,  as  published  by  Celsus,  but  only  quotations 
in  the  answers. 

Indeed  this  remark  may  be  made  general.  The  works  of  120 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  are  missing ;  lost  in  some  way  or 
other.  It  seems  as  if  %eal  had  destroyed  some  of  them,  because 
we  know  there  were  edicts  of  Constantine  and  Theodosius 
junior  ordering  them  to  be  burnt;  but  it  has  been  also  said2 
that  they  were  despised  and  disregarded ;  which  seems  not 
unlikely  from  what  remains  of  them.  That  they  are  not  extant 
is  a  thing  to  be  lamented,  as  they  would  do  us  probably  much 
more  good  than  harm  ;  and  as  the  want  of  them  is  apt  to  raise 
imaginations,  that  they  contained  more  than  they  really  did. 
It  seems  clear  that  what  we  find  quoted  as  Celsus' s  may  be 
depended  upon  as  his ;  because  Origen  did  not  know  that  the 
works  of  Celsus  would  be  lost  ;  and  he,  of  course,  answered 
those  arguments  which  appeared  to  him  most  dangerous  to  his 
religion. 


1  Lard.  Works,  vol.  vin.  p.  1,  £c. 
from  Jerom  de  Vir.  illustr.  proem. 
-  Chrys.  de  S.  Bab.     Or.  2.  Tom.  n. 


p.  539.  Kdit.  Bcncd.  Powell,  p.  08,  also 
Lardner' s  Works,  vol.  vin.  p.  2,  3. 


I.  Xl'i.   17.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACKED.  85 

I.  But  the  testimony  that  Celsus  has  incidentally  given  is 
very  valuable.  It  appears  from  him  that  the  Jews  expected  a 
Messiah ;  that  almost  all  those  things  had  been  said  to  happen 
to  Jesus  which  our  New  Testament  affirms :  there  are  quota 
tions  out  of  three  Gospels  >  though  the  Evangelists  are  not 
namedy  and  many  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  not 
out  of  any  of  the  false  gospels.  He  confirms  (all  in  the  way 
of  objection)  the  Christian  accounts  of  the  propagation  of  the 
Gospel,  and  seems  to  have  known  of  the  principal  heresies. 
He  may  be  said  to  confirm  the  accounts  of  the  miracles  of  the 
New  Testament,  partly  by  accusing  the  Christians  of  magic. 
This  may  suffice  for  our  purpose :  particulars  may  be  found  in 
Lardner's  ancient  Testimonies,  or  in  Origen  against  Celsus, 
where  there  are  summaries  of  Celsus' s  objections. 

2i  Porphyry3  is  placed  in  the  year  270;  he  was  a  Tyrian,  of 
a  good  family  :  he  is  called  by  Jerom,  Bataneotes ;  whence 
some  have  thought  that  he  was  born  at  Batanea,  and  that 
Batanea  might  be  in  some  colony  of  Tyrians.  He  studied  some 
time  under  Longinus ;  and  afterwards  he  attended  the  school 
which  Plotinus  kept  at  Rome,  for  six  years.  He  wrote  many 
books,  had  a  philosophical  turn,  and  admired  Pythagoras;  he 
wrote  a  copious  treatise  against  the  Christians,  to  whom  he  was 
a  great  enemy ;  and  his  attacks  are  reckoned  the  most  formid 
able  of  any  among  the  ancients.  But,  incidentally,  his  testi 
mony  is  the  most  valuable  on  that  very  account.  He  had  made 
himself  acquainted  with  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and 
there  are  plain  references  in  his  writings  to  our  four  Gospels, 
the  Acts,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  besides  probable 
references  to  other  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  He  may  well  be 
thought4  to  confirm  our  Saviour's  miracles.  Some  of  Por 
phyry's  works  remain,  but  that  against  Christians  only  in  frag 
ments,  and  they  are  very  much  dispersed — in  Eusebius,  Jerom, 
&c.  JeronTs  Commentary  on  Daniel  contains  Porphyry's  ob 
jections  against  that  work. 

Julian  was  nephew  of  Constantine  the  Great,  being  son  of 
that  Emperor's  brother,  Constantius  ;  a  man  of  polished  etluca- 
cation  and  fine  parts,  and  many  good  qualities.  He  became 
Emperor  in  361,  and  died  in  3(33,  of  a  wound  received  in  battle, 
in  the  32d  year  of  his  age.  He  was  brought  up  a  Christian, 


3  Porphyry's  Chapter  in  Lardner's 
Tests,  is  the  37th  ;  Works,  vol.  viu.  p. 
176. 


4  Lardner's   Works,    vol.  ix.    p. 
a  remarkable  passage. 


86  GENUINENESS    AND    AUTHENTICITY         [I.  xii.    1?. 

but  returned  to  Gentilism,  and  is  thence  called  the  Apostate.  I. 
He  seems  to  have  been  proud,  vain,  and  in  some  things  what 
is  familiarly  called  wrongheaded,  for  want  of  a  particular  122 
cause  to  which  seeming  absurdities  can  be  ascribed.  His 
apostasy  seems  partly  owing  to  these  faults,  and  partly  to  his 
great  intercourse  with  the  Pagan  plilosophers.  It  is  thought 
to  have  taken  place  when  he  was  not  much  above  twenty  years 
of  age.  He  was  a  great  composer  both  of  orations  and  epistles, 
not  to  mention  edicts.  We  have  a  folio  volume  of  his  works 
now  :  his  work  against  Christians  was  written  while  he  was  pre 
paring  for  the  Persian  war.  Fragments  of  it  are  to  be  found  in 
the  works  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who  wrote  against  it ;  from 
which  it  appears  that  Julian  may  be  now  considered  as  a  valu 
able  witness  in  favour  of  the  Scriptures1.  He  allows  the  time 
of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  rise  of  the  Christian  religion. 
"  He  bears  witness  to  the  genuineness  and  authenticity"  of  our 
four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  so  as  to  exclude 
other  histories.  He  plainly  refers  to  several  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistles.  He  allows  Jesus  Christ  to  have  worked  miracles ;  he 
mentions  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and  Sergius  Paulus. 
"His  arguments'"  "are  perfectly  harmless,  and  insufficient  to 
unsettle  the  weakest  Christian3." 

Besides  these  principal  enemies  to  Christianity,  there  were 
others.  Hierocles*  wrote  a  comparison  between  the  miracles  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  those  of  Apollonius^  of  Tyana ;  adopting  123 
Philostratus*  s  account  of  Apollonius,  which  has  been  thought 
by  some  to  have  been  written  with  the  same  view ;  though 
Lardner  seems  to  prove  that  it  did  not  at  all  refer  to  Christ. 
Lactantius  mentions  an  anonymous  writer  of  the  same  cast  be 
sides  Hierocles  ;  indeed  he  does  not  name  Hierocles,  though  he 
describes  him  fully;  but  others  do.  Some  ancient  works  against 


1  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  viu.  p.  J10. 
See  Richardson's  Canon,  p.  128.  130,  and 
Powell,  p.  68. 

2  How  strange  it  is  that  such  men  as 
Pliny  jun.  and  Julian  should  prefer  hea 
thenism  to  Christianity  !  Could  it  be  be- 


itself. 


3  Placed  by  Lard,  in  303  :  an  adviser 
in   Diocletian's  persecution.     President 
in  Bithynia,  prefect  at  Alexandria. 

4  Apollonius  was,  in  some  sense,  an 
obscure  man,  or  his  character  not  famous, 


cause  the  rites  of  the  religion  in  which   |   till  raised  by  Philostratus  about  the  year 
one  is  brought  up  are  strongly  associated   j   210.   Apollonius  was  a  Pythagorean,  and 


with  all  that  is  really  valuable  in  reli 
gion  ?  religious  principles,  affections,  sen 
timents  ?— giving  up  one's  outward  reli 
gion  might  seem  treachery  to  religion 


affected  to  improve  upon  Pythagoras,  or 
go  beyond  him.  And  so,  by  fasting,  &c. 
he  was  enabled  (says  his  biographer)  to 
do  many  wonderful  things. 


I.  xiii.   1.]  OF    BOOKS    ACCOUNTED    SACRED.  87 

I.  Christians  are  probably  lost,  as  well  as  some  ancient  defences 
of  Christianity. 

On  the  whole,  -the  testimonies  of  the  professed  enemies  of 
Christianity  may  be  reckoned  more  valuable  than  that  of  the 
same  number  of  friends.  Their  works  had  but  little  success 
in  their  own  times,  and  now  they  afford  very  strong  proof  against 
the  end  for  which  they  were  written. 

They  are  also  extremely  useful  in  confirming  our  reason 
ings  by  which  we  distinguish  between  apocryphal  books  and 
those  which  we  call  canonical. 

This  is  well  expressed  at  the  end  of  Lardner's  Review  of 
his  ancient  Testimonies5. 

Having  then  given  the  general  plan  of  our  argument  for 
proving  the  genuineness  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  also  sufficient  specimens  of  the  particular  testimonies  on 
which  that  argument  is  founded,  with  directions  to  find  the 
rest,  we  may  conclude  that  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament 
are  genuine. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

OF    THE    DIFFERENCE     BETWEEN    REAL    AND    FICTITIOUS 
NARRATIVES. 

1.  A  GENERAL  idea  of  the  contents  of  this  Chapter  seems 
the  first  thing  here  to  be  explained. 

Though  our  proof  given  in  the  preceding  Chapter,  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament  seems  sufficient, 
yet  it  was  all  (or  very  nearly  all)  of  the  external  sort ;  whereas 
genuineness  is  perhaps  more  frequently,  though  not  more  satis 
factorily,  proved  from  internal  marks,  than  from  external  tes 
timonies.  It  is  thus  Mr.  Hume  proves  the  genuineness  of  the 
'EiKwv  fiao-tXiKq,  at  the  end  of  his  reign  of  Charles  I.,  (though 
by  the  way,  the  third  volume  of  the  Clarendon  Papers  seems 
clearly  to  prove  that  it  was  written  by  Bishop  Gauden).  Now 
internal  proof  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  style,  manner,  &c. 
and  we  have  no  knowledge  of  the  style  and  manner  of  the 
sacred  writers,  except  we  take  for  granted  that  our  Scriptures 
are  written  by  them.  We  can  say  indeed  that  some  things 

5  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  97- 


88  DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN    REAL  [I.  xiii.  2. 

written  in  early  times  of  Christianity  are  too  absurd  to  be  of  I. 
Divine  authority;  but  we  cannot  say  they  are  too  absurd  to  be 
written  by  Matthew  the  publican.  How  then  can  we  get  at 
any  thing  like  internal  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels? 
the  most  likely  method  seems  to  be,  to  prove  that  such  narra 
tives  could  not  be  invented  by  any  one  :  from  whence  it  would 
follow,  that  they  are  mere  simple  relations  of  real  facts ;  that  125 
they  are  authentic  histories.  If  they  are  such,  the  main  point 
is  gained,  and  a  dispute  about  the  authors  would  be  thought 
superfluous.  Yet,  if  we  wished  to  form  an  opinion  on  the 
point,  we  should  say,  and  content  ourselves  with  saying,  Who 
so  likely  to  have  recorded  a  set  of  facts  and  sayings  (if  they  are 
truly  recorded)  as  those  who  were  witnesses  of  them,  and  most 
interested  to  have  them  known  and  remembered  ?  Finding  the 
names  of  certain  persons  prefixed  as  the  authors,  would  be 
thought  quite  a  sufficient  proof  that  they  were  so,  whenever 
there  was  no  reason  to  the  contrary. 

Let  us  then  see  whether  it  is  at  all  credible,  that  any  per 
sons  whatever  could  invent  such  narratives  as  the  Gospels  are  ? 
could  put  together  such  a  train  of  events  and  discourses,  so  as 
to  have  them  believed :  for  that  the  Gospels  were  believed  by 
many  is  too  evident  to  be  questioned. 

When  we  have  shewn  the  great  probability  that  no  persons 
whatever  could  have  invented  the  series  of  Gospel  events,  we 
may  offer  some  additional  considerations,  shewing  that  such 
persons  in  particular  as  the  Evangelists  could  not  connect 
such  things  into  a  regular  narrative.  Nor  would  it  at  all  .fol 
low  that  the  Evangelists  could  not  write  the  narratives :  the 
facts  are  such  as  they  may  well  be  conceived  to  record,  sup 
posing  they  had  really  known  them ;  though  such  as  they 
could  not  have  imagined,  had  they  never  known  them. 

First,  then,  we  are  to  offer  reasons  for  thinking  that  no  per 
sons  whatsoever  could  invent  such  narratives  as  our  Gospels : 
and  here  the  most  satisfactory  method  would  probably  be,  first, 
to  speak  in  general  of  inventing  narratives,  and  then  to  apply 
our  observations  to  the  case  of  the  Gospels. 

2.  We  can  form  more  judgment  whether  a  relator  invents 
what  he  relates,  than  might  perhaps  at  first  be  imagined.  The  12(5 
readiest  way  to  judge  is  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  the  re 
lator,  surround  ourselves  with  all  his  circumstances,  and  ask, 
could  he  have  known  this?  could  he  have  thought  of  that  ? 
from  whence,  in  such  a  situation,  could  he  have  borrowed  this 


I.  Xili.  3.]  AND     FICTITIOUS     NAKIl  ATIVES.  89 

I.  fact,  derived  this  notion,  adopted  this  expression  ?  We  may  do 
this  with  various  degrees  of  attention,  but  if  we  do  it  with  the 
greatest  conceivable  degree,  it  will  not  fail  us,  or  leave  us  in 
much  doubt. 

Without  doing  this  very  exactly,  comparing  circumstances 
will  do  a  great  deal  towards  discerning  truth  from  fiction.  It  is 
surprising  what  discoveries  of  falsehood  have  been  made  by 
working  circumstances  about  into  different  combinations :  this 
appears  in  cross-examinations,  so  evidently,  that  if  a  man 
wants  to  conceal  any  event,  he  never  dares  mention  a  number 
of  circumstances,  however  trifling  they  may  seem  to  be. 

3.  We  may  speak  more  precisely  and  readily  of  fictitious 
characters,  if  we  are  aware  of  the  parts  of  which  any  one  must 
consist.  According  to  Aristotle,  whoever  makes  a  fictitious 
character,  must  be  able  to  draw,  with  probability,  a  [wQos,  or 
series  of  interesting  incidents ;  rjOrj,  manners  suitable  to  the 
character ;  Siavoia,  thoughts  or  sentiments,  and  Xe^i?  expres 
sions,  such  as  a  person  of  that  character  would  most  freely 
use1. 

Now,  to  take  the  most  simple  case  first,  let  us  suppose  a 
man  wanted  to  draw  a  character  of  one  such  as  himself,  an 
equal,  a  countryman,  a  cotemporary ;  I  mean  so  that  the  ficti 
tious  character  shall  pass  for  real,  and  all  the  fictitious  events 
12?  for  real ;  that  must  always  be  understood,  on  the  present  sub 
ject.  Though  he  would  here  come  the  nearest  to  truth,  or 
make  his  fictitious  incidents  most  like  to  real  ones,  yet  he  would 
meet  with  some  difficulties  which  he  would  find  unsurmount- 
able;  and,  if  he  published  his  invention  soon,  he  would  have 
judges  very  near  at  hand.  Experience  tells  us  that  no  man  is 
equal  to  the  task  of  putting  together  a  long  series  of  facts 
which  shall  be  consistent  with  each  other,  and  with  cotempo- 
raneous  facts  whose  truth  is  established,  so  as  to  deceive  those 
who  know  mankind.  And  we  can  conceive  that  the  fictitious 
person  must  be  placed  in  some  particular  circumstances,  and 
made  to  be  connected  with  some  particular  persons,  and  that  he 
must  be  represented  as  knowing  some  things  and  some  men 
better  than  the  author  knows  them  ;  as  being  present  at  some 
places  which  the  author  knew  but  imperfectly  ;  as  being  affected 
by  some  laws,  or  by  some  parts  of  nature,  or  some  civil  com- 


1  Want  of  costume  in  painting,  and 
want  of  observing  the  time  of  certain  in 
ventions,  such  as  fire-arms,  &c.  often  dis 


cover  something  or  other  with  regard  to 
the  painter. 


90  UIFFEllENCE    BETWEEN    REAL  [I.  xill.  4,  5. 

motions  or  revolutions,   which  the  author  did  not  know  mi-   I. 
nutely :   in  all  which  cases,  though   it  would  have  been  easy 
to  describe  real  facts,  fiction  will  be*infallibly  detected. 

4.  In  the  next  place,  suppose  a  man  undertakes  to  draw 
a    fictitious  character   of  one  remote  in  place   or  time,  of  a 
foreigner,  or   an  ancient,  which  he   wishes  to  pass   for  real, 
his  accounts  may  not  seem  so  inaccurate  and  improbable  to 
his  countrymen  and  cotemporaries,  but  they  will  be  in  reality 
much  more  so  ;  and  therefore,  after  a  little  more  time,  they  will 
be  discovered  and  publicly  known  to  be  so.     He  will  not  dare 
to  be  circumstantial,  which  will  give  not  only  an  insipidity  and 
an  indecisive  air  to  his  narrative,  but  will  make  it  less  credible 
and  less  attended  to.     No  one  will  doubt  about  this  who  has 
attended  to  the  manner  in  which  critics  have  proved  the  spurious- 
ness  of  such  writings  as  the  Apostolic1  Constitutions,  &c.,  or  128 
who  has  seen  the  gross  blunders  which  some  foreign  authors 
make  in  describing  English  manners.      (Not  that  I  would  in 
sinuate  that  English  authors  describe  foreign  manners  better — 

of  this  we  are  not  judges). .  .The  mistakes  that  men  are  liable  to 
make  in  describing  the  manners  of  past  times,  are  mentioned 
by  Lardner,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  first  part  of  the  Credi 
bility  of  the  Gospel  History 2.  If  a  Frenchman  was  to  write 
a  feigned  narrative  of  incidents  happening  in  England,  the 
falsehood  of  his  narration  would  appear  in  every  page3. 

5.  The   difficulty   and   the   danger    of  detection   is   still 
greater  when  any  one   undertakes  to  draw   a  character  of  a 
superior ;   and  the  greater  the  superiority  the  greater  the  diffi 
culty  :  the    awkwardness    with   which   lower   people   ape   the 
manners  of  the  higher   is   enough    to    convince    us   of   this. 
The  model  is  all  dignity,  ease,  and  elegance;  the  imitation  is 
stiff,  forced,  mean,  and  contemptible.     But  a  superior  is  not 
only  one  higher  in  rank,  but  one  higher  in  knowledge,  abilities 
and  talents,  refinement  of  manners,  elevation  and  dignity  and 
purity  of  sentiment,    and  also   in  power.      If  a   low  vulgar 
person  attempts  to  describe  such  an  one,  he  immediately  makes 
himself  ridiculous  to  those  who  know  high  life  ;   his  manners 
are  not  fashionable,  his  generosity  is  extravagance,  his  dignity 
blustering  and  arrogance — all  his  imitation  a  coarse  daubing, 
which  leaves  no  expression  of  real  greatness.     Let  an  ordinary 

1  See  Lardner's  Ace.  of  Porphyry,  last  s  How  does  Gil  Bias  appear  to  a  Spa- 
Sect.  about  Philosophy  of  Oracles.                niard  .* 

2  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  420. 


I.  xlii.  G— 8.]         AND    FICTITIOUS    NARRATIVES.  91 

I.  mechanic  write  a  letter  from  a  great  statesman  to  his  secre 
tary,  containing  supposed  confidential  communications,  not 
three  words  together  will  be  right. 

129  6.    The  absurdities  into  which  a  fictitious  narrative  would 
run  would  be  greater  still,  if  the  character  feigned  was  some 
thing  more  than  human.    Here  the  author's  taste  for  prodigies 
would  display  itself:  his  deity  would  easily  take  offence,   and 
then  all  would  be  fire,  thunder,  vengeance ;  or  else  he  would 
be  flattered,  and  then  there  would  be  fantastic  and  arbitrary 
rewarding,  of  mere  favourites,   or   accidental   benefactors,  or 
partizans.     The   hero   or   demi-god  would  "annihilate4  both 
space  and  time,"  and  be  sure  to  do  nothing  that  a  mere  man 
could  do,  nothing  that  would  be  dictated  by  plain  common 
sense5. 

7-  To  these  observations  it  may  be  objected,  If  it  is  so 
difficult  to  draw  characters,  why  is  it  so  often  undertaken,  and 
so  successfully,  in  epic  and  dramatic  compositions  ?  We 
might  answer,  that  characters  do  frequently  contain  many  such 
blunders  as  we  have  just  now  mentioned;  and  these  blunders 
do  hurt  and  weaken  the  interest  of  the  pieces  in  which  they 
are  found  ;  yet  in  some  degree  such  pieces  do  interest  those 
who  want  nothing  more  than  a  temporary  illusion.  Did  any 
thing  important  depend  upon  the  justness  of  drawing,  the 
want  of  resemblance  would  soon  be  discovered.  But  the  best 
drawn  characters  in  the  epos  and  drama  are  quite  a  different 
business  from  narratives  intended  to  pass  for  fact:  in  the 
former,  the  illusion  will  be  effected,  though  all  the  incidents 
are  known  to  be  feigned ;  in  the  latter,  there  must  be  no  fact 
that  can  possibly  be  disproved.  No  man  could  compose  a 
more  probable  epos  than  Henry  Fielding;  at  the  same  time, 

130  he  saw  so  much  of  detecting  falsehood  by  comparing  circum 
stances,  in  his  magisterial  capacity,  that  he  would  have  been 
the  last  man  in  the  world  to  attempt  a  circumstantial  narrative 
which  should  be  received  as  fact.      No  man  would  judge  such 
an  attempt  more  impracticable.     Merely  to  say  that  such  an 
one  acted  and  spoke  wittily,  and  such  an  one  wisely,  is  not 
difficult:   to   make    characters    act    and   speak   in   many    and 
extraordinary  situations,  so  that  what  they  do  and  say  shall  be 
believed  as  reality,  is  beyond  the  power  of  man. 

8.    So  far  in  general  of  making  fictitious  characters  pass 

1  kee.  j   might  be  read,  and  remarks  made  :  it  was 

5  Here  the  letter  of  Jesus  to  Abgarus  \  mentioned  Chap.  xn.  Sect.  5. 


92  DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN    REAL  [I.  xiti.  9. 

for  real.     Let  us  now  apply  this  to  the  narratives  of  the  New    I. 
Testament,  so  as  to  see  whether  it  is  credible,  that  any  person 
whatever  should  have  feigned  or  invented  them. 

The  Gospel  narratives  are  very  circumstantial:  this  single 
consideration  goes  a  great  way  :  give  any  judge  a  sufficient 
number  of  circumstances,  and  he  will  discover  any  falsehood. 
Yet  it  must  be  owned,  that  each  of  the  two  opposite  histo 
ries  of  Squires,  the  gipsy,  was  so  circumstantial  that  it  would 
have  been  believed,  had  it  not  been  for  the  other:  but  then, 
though  the  number  of  circumstances  was  large  for  the  kind  of 
thing,  in  comparison  it  was  very  small,  the  scene  confined,  the 
persons  very  low,  so  as  to  have  no  property  or  education,  not 
likely  to  be  distinct,  precise,  simple,  sincere;  the  incidents 
feeble,  the  cotemporaneous  facts  very  obscure.  Of  the 
'EiKwv  flaa-iXiKJ  we  may  say,  that  the  opposite  evidences  were, 
when  Mr.  Hume  wrote,  very  strong,  so  as  to  make  the 
case  doubtful,  which  may  frequently  happen ;  but  it  was  a 
composition  infinitely  easier  to  invent  than  the  Gospels :  then 
there  was  external  and  internal  testimony  on  both  sides ;  I  do 
not  know  that  there  is  either  against  the  Gospels :  only  a 
general  prejudice  and  presumption.  We  may  add  therefore,  131 
that  the  circumstances  mentioned  in  the  Gospel  narratives  were 
not  only  numerous,  but  public,  striking;  circumstances  affect 
ing  many  civil  governors ;  affecting  life  and  death ; — giving 
accounts  of  the  Jewish  and  Roman  laws,  which  are  more  known 
at  this  day  than  any  others,  by  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews, 
and  by  the  study  of  the  Roman  civil  law.  They  were  circum 
stances  relating  to  countries  very  distant  from  each  other; 
connecting  very  distant  times  by  means  of  prophecies  and  their 
completion.  Such  circumstances  as  these  no  man  could  feign 
without  the  disadvantages  now  mentioned,  of  describing  foreign 
affairs  and  past  events.  To  suppose  the  narratives  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  (A.D.  70.)  is  in  effect 
to  suppose  them  true ;  because  they  were  believed,  and  could 
not  possibly  be  believed,  if  false :  nevertheless,  we  may  add, 
on  this  supposition,  whoever  invented  the  narratives  in  ques 
tion,  at  or  near  the  time  of  the  events,  must  have  had  all  the 
difficulties  of  drawing  the  character  of  a  superior;  a  most 
amiable  and  sublime  character,  nay,  a  character  of  one  who 
had  power  more  than  human. 

9.    Our  conclusion  here  is,   that  it  is  highly  improbable, 
and  quite  incredible,   that   any  person  whatever  could   have 


I.   Xl'ii.  9.]  AND     FICTITIOUS     NARRATIVES.  93 

I.  invented  the  narratives  of  the  New  Testament.  From  whence 
it  follows,  according  to  what  was  before  laid  down,  that,  if 
if  we  do  not  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  Books  of  the  New- 
Testament  by  internal  evidence,  we  at  least  by  internal  evi 
dence  take  away  the  ground  of  the  dispute :  because  we  prove 
their  authenticity  as  histories;  and  if  the  things  there  related 
were  really  performed,  the  names  of  the  historians  become 
matters  of  inferior  moment.  We  are  now  to  proceed  to  shew, 
that  such  persons  in  particular  as  the  Evangelists  could  not 

132  connect  such  things  as  are  contained  in  them  by  any  power  of 
invention. 

The  first  step  towards  shewing  this  seems  to  be,  to  give 
some  account  of  the  characters  of  the  Evangelists,  or  sacred 
historians  (we  may  say)  of  the  New  Testament,  since  St. 
Luke  composed  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  shewing  that  they 
had  a  decent  plain  education,  but  were  not  such  proficients 
in  learning  as  to  invent  the  Gospel  history. 

St.  Matthew  was1  a  man  of  confined  observation:  of 
Galilee,  as  were  the  other  Apostles ;  his  usual  station  was  by 
the  sea-side,  in  Capernaum ;  his  employment  (probably)  to 
collect  tolls  and  duties  of  those  who  came  into  Judea,  and 
brought  goods  and  merchandises  by  the  way  of  the  sea  of 
Galilee :  that  employment  he  quitted  when  our  Saviour 
called  him  from  the  receipt  of  custom,  but  his  education  had 
then  been  long  finished,  his  peculiar  habits  acquired,  his 
character  fixed.  We  find  he  was  able  to  make  some  kind 
of  entertainment  for  a  numerous  company.  Amongst  his 
guests  were  Jesus  and  some  of  his  disciples,  and  many  pub 
licans,  whose  employments  were  at  least  nearly  allied  to 
Matthew's.  The  entertainment  might  be  made  on  taking  leave 
of  them  and  the  profession.  Matthew,  to  execute  the  duties 
of  his  office,  must  have  understood  numbers  and  accounts, 
and  must  have  had  some  idea  of  the  commodities  for  which 
toll  or  duty  was  paid ;  but  this  knowledge  would  not  have  en 
abled  him  to  compose  a  consistent  circumstantial  narrative  out 
of  his  own  imagination,  in  which  such  things  should  be 
described  as  he  describes  in  his  gospel.  It  is  as  probable 
that  the  printer's  boy  should  have  invented  Sir  Isaac  Newton's 

133  Principia,  as  that  Matthew  should  have  invented  some  actions 
and  sayings  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  he  relates. 

1  For  the  facts  here  related,  see  Lardner's  Appendix  to  his  Credibility. 


DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN     REAL 


[I.  xiii. 


Mark  was  the  same  as  John1,  surnamed  Mark:  his  I. 
mother,  Mary,  lived  at  Jerusalem  ;  St.  Peter  was  a  friend  of 
the  family  ;  and,  when  he  was  delivered  out  of  prison  by  the 
2  angel,  he  chose  to  go  to  their  house  immediately.  Mark  was 
sister's  son  to  Barnabas*,  who  introduced  his  nephew  to  St. 
Paul;  Mark  accompanied  them  first  to  Antioch4  (from  Jeru 
salem),  then  to  Cyprus.  But,  when  they  landed  (from  Cyprus) 
at  Perga  in  Pamphylia,  Mark  returned  home  to  5  Jerusalem. 
Though  Barnabas  was  his  uncle,  Peter  was  his  chief  friend  : 
at  home  therefore  he  probably  conversed  with  Peter. 

Afterwards,  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  set  about  a  visita 
tion  of  the  churches,  Barnabas  would  have  chosen  his  nephew 
as  an  assistant ;  but  Paul,  rather  hurt  with  Mark's  having 
left  him  before,  preferred  Silas ;  though  afterwards,  at  Rome, 
he  again  accepted  Mark's  assistance,  and  desired  Timothy  to 
bring  him,  as  likely  to  be  a  good  assistant,  "  profitable"  "  for 
the  ministry6."  However,  Mark  adhered  chiefly  to  Peter,  the 
old  friend  of  his  family,  and  wrote  his  gospel  at  Rome,  with 
Peter,  and  from  Peter's7  preaching;  though  he  went  once 
more  with  his  uncle,  Barnabas,  to  Cyprus,  and  was  some  time 
with  St.  Paul  in  his  troubles. 

It  appears  from  this  account,  that  Mark  was  not  superior 
in  worldly  rank  to  Peter ;  and  Peter  was  a  fisherman :  pos 
sessed  indeed  of  some  fishing-vessels,  but  not  educated  for  any 
other  employment. 

St.  Luke  was  probably  a  Jew,  or  of  the  Jewish  religion:  134 
he  was  probably  a  N physician,  but  then  it  should  be  remem 
bered  that  slaves  used  to  be  physicians  to  their  master's  fami 
lies.  Some  have  concluded,  from  his  being  a  physician,  that 
he  must  have  been  a  slave,  but  that  cannot  be  concluded ; 
what  we  want,  may ;  that  St.  Luke's  being  a  physician  does 
not  imply  that  he  was  as  liberally  educated  as  a  modern  phy 
sician  usually  is.  The  notion  of  his  being  a  painter  seems  to 
be  given  up.  His  whole  history  consists  in  his  accompanying 
St.  Paul:  from  Paul's  preaching  he  wrote  his  gospel ;  probably 
he  formed  it  into  a  regular  book  in  Greece,  when  he  left  Paul. 
Indeed  it  is  probable  that  Luke  was  related  to  Paul;  "Lucius"9 
one  of  his  "  kinsmen,"  probably  meant  Luke :  at  least,  Luke 
accompanied  Paul  as  a  AuxJCWOf)  °r  assistant,  when  sent  pri- 


1  Acts  xii.  12,  2">.        2  Acts  xii.  12. 
3  Col.  iv.  10.  4  Acts  xiii.  f». 

6  Acts  xiii.  13.  6  2  Tim.  iv.  11. 


7  Preaching,  at  first,  must  have  been 
historical.     Lard.  Suppl. 

8  Col.  xiv.  14.  »  Rom.  xvi.21. 


I.  xiii.  9-]  AND     FICTITIOUS    NARRATIVES. 


I.  soner  from  Cesarea  to  Rome,  and  there  continued  with  him 
during  "  his  two  years  imprisonment."  Tertullian  and  Chry- 
sostom  call  St.  Paul  St.  Luke's  master,  that  is,  teacher ; 
though  Luke  was  probably  an  hearer  of  Christ  himself,  and 
walked  with  him  to  Emmaus.  Now,  if  Luke  was  Paul's  assist 
ant,  and  Paul  was  a  tentmaker,  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that 
Luke  had  any  very  learned  or  polite  education — He  must 
have  understood  Greek ;  so  must  all  the  other  evangelists. 

John  was  the  son  of  a,  fisherman  on  the  sea  of  Galilee, 
younger  brother  to  James,  (son  of  Zebedee10).  His  father 
possessed  a  boat  and  nets;  and  he  hired11  servants  necessary 
for  fishing.  John's  mother,  Salome,  was  one  of  those  who 
brought  sweet  spices12  to  embalm  our  Saviour's  body,  and  John 
had  an  home  to  which  he  took13  the  Virgin  Mary.  Some  think 
135  John  was  a  relation  of  Christ's,  and  was  employed  as  an 
humble  friend,  or  honourable  servant,  about  his  person. 

It  is  said,  Acts  iv.  13,  of  Peter  and  John,  that  they  were 
ignorant  and  unlearned  men ;  but  dypdjutfJittroi  and  '^iwrai 
means  only,  "illiterate  men,  and  in  private  stations  of  life:" 
"  neither  doctors  (y paniuLaTcIs)  nor  magistrates."  However, 
there  is  reason  to  think  that  they  had  what  we  should  call 
a  decent  education.  The  instruction  they  had  received  re 
lated  chiefly  to  the  dispensation  of  Moses  (in  all  probability) ; 
and  was  the  more  full,  on  account  of  the  general  expectation 
of  the  Messiah  then  prevailing.  This  text,  Acts  iv.  13,  con 
tains  the  observation  which  we  want  to  enforce. 

What  has  been  said  of  St.  Matthew,  may  now  be  said 
in  general  of  the  other  historians  of  the  New  Testament ;  if 
there  is  any  thing  in  the  Gospel  (as  we  hope  to  prove)  im 
plying  a  superior  turn  of  mind,  that  could  not  be  invented  by 
any  of  them ;  nor  by  that  spirit,  which  was  imbibed  at  the 
feet  of  Gamaliel,  and  excited  Saul  to  make  uhavock  among 
the  Christian  brethren.  Had  these  persons  invented,  we  may 
see  what  they  would  have  written,  by  their  being  desirous  to 
call  downjlre  from  heaven15;  by  their  ambition  to  be  greatest 
in  the  kingdom10  of  Christ.  They  would  not  have  invented 
accounts  of  17 dissensions  among  themselves;  of  their  all  for 
saking  their  Lord,  of  one  of  them  denying  him,  and  another 
betraying  him18. 


"  Matt.  iv.  21. 
12  Markxvi.  1. 
14  Acts  viii.  3. 


11  Mark  i.  20. 
13  John  xix.  2J. 
15  Luke  ix.  54. 


10  Mark  ix.  34. 

17  Acts  xv.  2,  39.    Gal.  ii.  11 

18  Matt.  xxvi.  49,  56,  74. 


96 


DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN    REAL  [I.  xiii.  10 


10.  That  the  Gospel  narratives  are  not  invented  will  far-  I. 
ther  appear,  if  we  apply  to  them  a  little  more  particularly 
what  was  laid  down  before  in  general  about  miracles,  only 
taking  care  not  to  encroach  upon  the  subjects  of  the  subse-  136 
quent  chapters.  It  seems  undeniable,  that  if  the  Evangelists 
had  invented  the  accounts  of  the  miracles  they  related,  those 
miracles  would  have  been  as  idle  and  foolish  as  those  related 
by  the  ancient  Fathers ;  for  the  Fathers  had,  many  of  them, 
much  better  education  than  the  Evangelists.  Inventing  mi 
racles  is  treading  on  dangerous  ground.  I  know  no  one  who 
would  not  in  such  an  attempt,  even  with  the  greatest  improve 
ments  the  world  has  ever  had,  run  into  absurd  pomp  and 
ostentation ;  into  something  that  would  dazzle  and  amaze  the 
vulgar,  into  something  remote  from  human  nature  and  common 
sense.  When,  therefore,  we  find  the  Gospel  miracles  rational, 
sober,  seasonable,  calculated  to  promote  one  particular  end, 
and  that  one  of  an  heavenly  and  supernatural  kind — never 
morose,  revengeful,  superstitious,  flighty — it  is  a  sufficient 
proof  that  they  were  not  invented  by  men.  I  should  think  it 
might  afford  a  strong  presumption  in  their  favour  merely  to 
reflect,  that  they  appear  rational  even  since  the  abolition  of 
witchcraft.  All  nations  in  all  ages,  till  very  lately,  have  be 
lieved  in  witchcraft ;  and  yet  there  is  not  properly  any  such 
thing  in  the  New  Testament;  (for  demoniacs  seem1  widely 
different  from  persons  bewitched)  ;  whereas,  if  men  had  in-  137 
vented  that  book,  it  would  have  contained  instances  of  witch 
craft  innumerable. 

In  order  to  make  the  difference  between  the  Gospel  mira- 


1  See  Macknight's  Prelim.  Essay,  vol. 
i.  p.  172.  Witches  are  human  beings, 
that  are  worshippers  of  the  Evil  Spirit 
(or  Spirits);  they  pay  obedience  to  him, 
and  he  gives  them  some  supernatural 
powers ;  they  worship  him  at  the  time 
or  place  called  in  French  Sabat  (see  Diet. 
Acad.)  This  is  the  idea;  when  people 
have  suffered  harm  (from  diseases,  ca 
lamities,  &c.)  it  has  been  ascribed  to 
some  particular  sorcerer,  or  sorceress, 
who  has  been  punished  as  the  cause  of 
the  harm.  Sometimes  a  sorcerer  or  sor 
ceress  has  been,  I  think,  punished  merely 
for  possessing  the  power  of  doing  harm, 
it  being  taken  for  granted  that  such 
power  would  be  exerted.  It  is  supposed 


to  be  known  by  certain  marks  whether 
a  person  has  such  power  or  not,  by  cer 
tain  actions,  thought  to  be  out  of  the 
common  way  of  actions  merely  human. 
Laws  against  witchcraft  have  been  laws 
against  any  one  exerting  or  possess 
ing  such  power.  Abolishing  such  laws 
is  forbidding  any  one  to  be  punished  as 
the  cause  of  such  harm,  or  as  possessing 
the  power  of  inflicting  it. 

But  a  demoniac  is  a  human  being 
possessed  by  a  demon  or  evil  spirit  (what 
ever  that  may  mean),  tormented  by  him; 
not  worshipping  the  devil,  nor  having 
any  power  of  performing  any  thing  su 
pernatural;  passive;  canting  no  evil  to 
any  one ;  or  no  intended,  contrived  evil. 


I.  xiii.   10.]  AND    FICTITIOUS    NARKATIVES.  9? 

I.  cles  and  those  of  the  Fathers  evident,  it  only  seems  necessary 
to  specify  a  few  of  the  latter  class,  as  the  former  are  well 
known.  These  we  may  find  in  great  abundance  in  Dr.  Mid- 
dleton's  Free  Inquiry ;  a  book  written  with  too  little  respect 
for  the  ancients,  as  has  been  already  hinted.  I  hope  what 
has  been  said  ~ before  may  render  a  reference  to  it  safe;  that 
is,  may  put  readers  upon  thinking,  before  they  form  3  their 
final  judgment.  The  miracles  of  the  Fathers  seem  often  imita 
tions  of  Gospel  miracles,  with  an  heightening.  The  death 
of  Polycarp*  may  be  compared  with  that  of  Christ.  The  ac 
count  of  Ignatius's  5 appearing  to  the  faithful  in  their  dreams, 
may  be  compared  to  the  necessary  information  given  to  St. 
Peter6.  The  demoniacs  of  Scripture  have  given  7  occasion  to 
a  great  many  idle  miracles,  and  to  attempts  which  have  been 
acknowledged  unsuccessful* :  the  9Bactrian  camel  may  be  one 
instance  of  the  foolish  sort.  I  do  not  know  whether  St.  An 
thony's  10  visit  from  Satan  will  bear  any  comparison  with  our 
138  Saviour's  temptation ;  which  last  is  intended  seemingly  to 
give  us  at  once  precept  and  example  in  the  three  most  dan 
gerous  situations  of  human  life,  namely,  when  men  would 
undermine  our  principles  with  false  philosophy — would  draw 
us  into  scenes  not  immediately  criminal,  but  such  as  could 
scarce  fail  to  corrupt  us — or  would  try  to  overpower  us  in 
direct  assaults  by  the  rewards  of  vice  deemed  irresistible. 
As  to  miracles  performed  by  bones  or  relics,  or  by  the  con 
secrated  elements,  I  do  not  recollect  any  thing  like  them  in 
Scripture ;  nor  can  those  who  proclaimed  their  faith  when 
Hunneric  had  cut  out  their  tongues,  be  fairly  compared  with 
those  who  had  the  gift  of  tongues  ;  a  gift  supernatural  indeed, 
but  necessary  to  enable  them  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  all  na 
tions.  The  lower  we  descend  in  point  of  time,  the  more 
extravagant  miracles  grow ;  the  taste  for  them  in  this,  resem 
bling  the  taste  for  strong  liquors,  that  it  requires  a  perpetual 
increase  of  strength. 

We  return  to  our  conclusion :  If  the  Gospel  miracles  are 
rational,  and  subsequent  ones,  though  related,  and,  we  pre 
sume,  invented  by  persons  of  better  education  than  the  Evan- 

2  Book  I.  xii.  16.  predate  the  Fathers  too  much. 

3  According    to    our  reasoning    here,   j       4  Middleton,  p.  124. 

Dr.    Middleton's  abuse  of  the   Fathers   •:        a  Midd.  p.  100.          ';  Acts  x. 
is  turned  into  an  argument  in  favour  of  \       "'  IMidd.  p.  80.  8  Ib.  p.  !(3. 

the   Cos-pel  History:   still  he  may  de-   j       s  Ib.  p.  119.  10  Ib.  p.  147. 

VOL.   I.  7 


98  DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN    REAL  [I.  xHi.  11. 

gelists,  are  irrational,  the  Gospel  miracles  were  not  invented   I. 
by  the  Evangelists. 

11.  Let  us  now  take  some  notice  of  the  incidents,  man 
ners,  sentiments,  and  expressions  found  in  the  Gospels,  such 
as  have  nothing  supernatural  in  them ;  and  see  whether  it  is 
credible  that  they  were  the  invention  of  the  sacred  historians. 
This  is  too  extensive  a  subject  to  enter  into  fully,  but  we 
may  give  a  few  specimens,  which  may  suffice  for  our  purpose, 
and  may  engage  the  student  to  "  search  the  Scriptures1'  for 
more. 

Some  incidents  have  been  very  lately  hinted  at,  which 
the  sacred  historians  must  have  been  desirous  to  omit  if  pos-  139 
sible.  We  may  add,  that  they  would  be  the  more  desirous 
to  omit  their  own  ambition^  because  it  was  disappointed ; — 
disappointed  ambition  is  a  thing  every  one  is  ashamed  of. 
Would  any  writers  have  chosen  to  describe  their  hero  as 
dying  an  ignominious  death  ?  Suffering  the  punishment  of 
a.  slave  between  two  criminals,  must  appear  a  very  bad  apo 
theosis* 

As  to  manners  and  sentiments :  The  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  evidently  must  want  to  have  their  hero  appear 
great.  Now,  take  a  fisherman  from  the  banks  of  Newfound 
land,  or  even  from  the  coast  of  Great  Britain,  and  let  him 
possess  as  many  fishing-vessels  as  Peter  or  Zebedee  did  on 
the  lake  of  Gennesareth,  or  sea  of  Galilee; — if  he  wished  to 
describe  an  heavenly  leader  as  great,  would  he  give  him  gen 
tleness  and  modesty  in  his  manners?  or  humility  and  placa 
bility  in  his  sentiments  ?  no ;  modesty  would  be  meanness, 
and  placability  cowardice. 

Nay,  suppose  he  wished  to  describe  such  a  character  as 
Jesus,  would  he  be  able  ?  the  story  of  the  good  Samaritan 
is  so  exquisite  an  instance  of  discretion,  that  I  know  not  the 
man  who  could  invent  it.  And  nearly  the  same  might  be 
said  of  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery.  The 
Lord's  Prayer  is  so  nobly  conceived,  so  aptly  arranged,  and 
so  properly  expressed,  that  I  have  not  the  least  idea  of  any 
one's  inventing  it  whose  thoughts  were  generally  fixed  on  a 
laborious  occupation. 

It  might  illustrate  some  things  which  have  been  said,  if 
we  were  to  suppose  an  European  gentleman  of  a  very  im 
proved  mind  to  have  fallen  amongst  savages,  and  to  have 
passed  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  and  died  amongst  them ;  he 


I.  xiii.    11.]  AND    FICTITIOUS    NARRATIVES.  99 

I.    did  them  such  service  as  to  be  generally  esteemed  ;   and,  after 

140  his  death,  they  are  desirous  of  recording  his  virtues; — now> 
from  the  particular  accounts  given  of  him,  it  would  be  easy  to 
judge  whether  those  accounts  were  real  or  fictitious.      If  the 
writer  made  him  only  a  better  sort  of  savage,  the  account  was 

fictitious;  if  he  described  manners  and  sentiments  plainly, 
without  applause  or  censure,  such  as  he  did  not  himself 
comprehend,  or  feel  the  merit  of,  and  ascribe  them  to  the  de 
ceased  merely  as  fact,  the  account  was  real. 

That  this  reasoning  has  weight,  will  not  be  denied  perhaps ; 
but  the  degree  in  which  it  is  forcible  will  not  be  seen  with 
out  attention  to  particular  instances.  It  is  with  regret  that 
I  forbear  to  say  more  of  the  instances  already  mentioned,  and 
that  I  pass  over  many  others ;  but  our  proper  business  will 
not  allow  all  to  be  insisted  on,  therefore  I  will  confine  myself 
to  the  last  scenes  of  our  Saviour's  life. 

When  Judas1  came  to  betray  his  Lord  and  Master,  he 
was  not  upbraided ;  his  salute  was  returned,  at  least  with  kind 
language ;  "  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Friend,  wherefore  art  thou 
come  ?"  Intimations  had  before2  been  given  of  treachery ;  but 
Jesus  spake  as  a  man,  and  would  not  repel  with  rudeness 
what  had  a  courteous  appearance.  Besides,  it  is  possible  Jesus 
might  perceive  that  the  act  of  Judas  was  about  to  bring  on 
more  fatal  consequences  than  Judas  himself  intended  ;  (for  his 
remorse  was  afterwards  desperate;)  Jesus  would  also  know 
that  kindness  would  be  more  apt  to  give  him  right  feelings 
than  the  sharpest  upbraidings : — but  not  one  of  these  mo 
tives  is  at  all  likely  to  have  entered  into  the  mind  of  Matthew, 
considered  as  a  mere  inventor. 

The  address  of  Jesus  to  Pilate,  according  to  the  sense3 

141  in  which  some  have  understood  it,  has  something  truly  great 
in  it ;  something  which  raises  the  character  of  Jesus  very  far 
above  that  of  his  judge.     The  sentence  pronounced  was  un 
just,  by  the  judge's  own  confession;  nevertheless  our  Saviour 
places  it  in   the  most  favourable  light,  and  apologizes  for  it. 
He  does  indeed  rather  intimate  that  Pilate  ought  not  to  have 
boasted  of  power,  as  he  only  submitted  to  the  Jewish  priests, 
and  at  best  was  only  a  tool  of  such  a  prince  as  Tiberius ;  but, 
though  this  is  intimated  with  an  ingenuous  dignity,  yet  the 
ruling  sentiments  are   pity  and   complacency,  which   mark   a 

1  Matt.  xxvi.  50.  |       3  John  xix.  11.    Macknight. 

•  John  xiii.  21,  &c. 

7 — 2 


100  DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN     REAL  [I.  xiii.   11. 

genuine  superiority.     How  St.  Matthew  could  of  himself  give   I. 
the  character  of  Jesus  such  sentiments  is  inexplicable. 

When  Jesus  was  "led  away"  to  be  crucified,  "there  fol 
lowed  him  a  great  company1  of  people,  and  of  women,  which 
(women)  also  bewailed  and  lamented  him."  What  shall  he 
say  to  them?  shall  it  be  this:  "Have  pity  upon  me2,  have 
pity  upon  me,  O  ye  my  friends  !  for  the  hand  of  God  hath 
touched  me?"  Had  we  been  composing  the  scene,  we  should 
have  been  well  contented  with  this  sentiment ;  and  so  would 
Matthew.  Attention  to  self,  in  such  a  situation,  would  convey 
no  idea  of  meanness :  but  no  !  these  were  the  words  of  Job : 
the  words  of  Christ  breathe  a  spirit  of  sublime  benevolence, 
which  makes  their  pathos  inimitable :  "  Daughters  of  Jeru 
salem,  weep  not  for  me,  but  weep  for  yourselves  and  for  your 
children  !"  For  my  own  part,  I  know  of  nothing  in  either 
tragedy  or  oratory  which  does  not  fall  below  this. 

A  vulgar  inventor  would  not  have  described  Christ,  under 
great  pain  and  fatigue,  just  expiring,  as  making  a  provision 
for  his  earthly  parent3.  "Behold  thy  son," — "behold  thy 
mother11 — are  perhaps  as  proper  and  beautiful  expressions  for  142 
such  an  act  of  introduction,  such  a  forming  of  a  connexion 
as  can  be  imagined.  Jesus  could  not  then  point  with  his 
hand ;  he  could  only  mark  out  each  of  these  beloved  person 
ages  to  the  other  by  his  eyes  and  countenance. 

But,  remote  as  these  instances  are  from  the  conceptions 
of  any  ordinary  man,  I  know  not  whether  the  last  I  shall 
mention  is  not,  if  possible,  still  more  so :  and  that  is,  the 
prayer  of  Jesus  to  his  heavenly  Father,  offered,  probably, 
whilst  the  Jews  were  actually  nailing  him  to  the  cross ; — "  Fa 
ther,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not1  what  they  do :"' — 
plain,  simple,  free  from  all  rhetorical  colouring,  all  declama 
tory  exaggeration  !  yet  containing  ideas  grand  and  affecting 
beyond  measure  !  I  say  not,  what  mechanic,  but  what  poet, 
what  painter,  what  artist  or  inventor  of  any  kind,  has  ever 
been  equal  to  feigning  any  thing  so  truly  divine? — such  wis 
dom  about  the  true  interests  of  those  who  themselves  were 
in  a  state  of  blindness  and  ignorance  ? — such  candour  and  in 
dulgence  in  urging  that  very  ignorance  in  excuse?  —  such 
fortitude  as  is  implied  in  Jesus's  considering  all  circumstances, 
whilst  under  actual  pain  and  disgrace — "  enduring  the  cross, 

1  Luke  xxiii.  27,  28.  3  John  xix.  20,  27. 

52  Job  xix.  21.  4  Luke  xxiii.  34. 


I.  Xlii.  12.]  AND    FICTITIOUS    NARRATIVES.  101 


I.  despising  the  shame5?" — such  meekness  as,  in  extreme  suf 
ferings,  utters  no  complaints,  no  reproofs  ?  and,  lastly,  such 
benevolence  as  is  displayed  in  praying  for  forgiveness  to  those 
against  whom  the  sufferer  would  have  been  indignant,  had 
they  done  a  much  less  cruel  deed  to  any  but  himself? 

12.  The  last  reason  that  I  shall  urge,  why  the  Gospel 
narratives  cannot  have  been  invented,  is  the  agreement  of  the 
different  Evangelists  with  each  other.  Indeed,  if  it  could 
be  imagined  that  they  had  written  in  concert,  or  had  copied 
143  from  each  other,  the  force  of  this  argument  would  be  weak 
ened  ;  but  appearances  are  very  strong  against  such  a  sup 
position.  Undoubtedly,  John  wrote  after  the  other  three,  and 
so  much  after  them,  that  he  might  have  seen  their  histories ; 
but  then,  as  he  does  not  write  with  a  view  of  saying  the  same 
things,  but  rather  with  a  view  of  supplying  what  he  thought 
they  seemed  to  have  omitted,  his  having  seen  three  Gospels 
is  not  to  be  pleaded  in  the  present  case.  Each  Evangelist 
seems  to  have  been  first  possessed  of  many  facts  and  sayings, 
and  to  have  judged  that  the  converts,  and  those  to  whom 
Christianity  was  preached,  ought  to  know  them  as  regularly 
as  himself;  and  each  seems  to  have  written  them  down  with 
this  view  :  each  would  probably  have  thought  it  needless  to 
write,  if  any  gospel  had  already  subsisted  in  the  place  where  he 
was.  Some  have  thought  that  Mark  abridged  Matthew,  but 
the  contrary  seems  proved  by  Lardner6 ;  Mark  does  not  follow 
the  order  of  Matthew,  and  he  wants  some  things  mentioned 
by  Matthew,  which  no  abridger  would  have  left  out,  and  has 
some  things  which  Matthew  has  not.  In  general,  it  may  be 
observed  of  the  first  three  Evangelists,  that  each  has  written 
what  may  be  called  a  complete  gospel;  that  is,  the  essentials  of 
a  gospel ;  and  that  each  has  some  things  not  unimportant  pe 
culiar  to  himself;  though  no  one  of  them  has"  nearly  all 
which  might  have  been  collected.  This  looks  very  unlike 
combination  ;  and  so  does  the  plain  artless  manner  in  which 
all  the  Gospels  are  written,  and  8the  varieties  which  are  found 
amongst  them  in  lesser  matters.  In  short,  there  is  no  appear 
ance  of  any  concerted  plan  between  the  different  Evangelists ; 

141  and,  on  the  supposition  that  there  was  none,  we  say,  that  their 
agreement  is  a  very  strong  argument  that  they  did  not  invent, 
but  only  related.  For  the  histories  which  may  be  invented 

5  Heb.  xii.  2.  I       7  j0hn  Xx.  30,  31 ;  xxi.  25. 

6  Supplement  to  Crcd,  8  Powell  Dis.  V.  p.  7(J. 


BETWEEN    KEA1  [I.  xiii.  IS. 

are  infinite:  therefore,  if  any  one  relator  invents,  the  proba-  I. 
bilitv  that  he  will  not  coincide  with  other  relators  is  infinitely 
^reat :  what  then  would  be  the  case  if  three  different  re 
lators,  though  all  aiming  to  make  the  same  person  head  of 
a  new  religion,  wrote  from  their  invention  !  How  widely  dif 
ferent  would  their  relations  be  from  our  first  three  Gospels  ! 
How  much  more  would  eaeh  differ  from  the  rest,  than  any  one 
of  our  Gospels  differs  from  the  others  ! 

As  to  the  order  in  which  the  three  Evangelists  did  write, 
it  does  not  seem  settled  :  different  writers  have  had  different 
opinions,  but  to  examine  them  would  delav  us  too  long.  Nor 
can  the  order  in  which  three  writers  wrote  be  of  very  great 
consequence,  if  they  wrote  independently  of  each  other.  Three 
different  narrations,  written  in  different  places,  might  be  writ 
ten  at  the  same  time;  one  might  be  begun  first,  another  finished 
first,  and  so  on. 

13.  The  last  observation  to  be  made  on  this  subject, 
upon  the  difference  between  real  and  fictitious  narratives,  is, 
that  the  reasoning  made  use  of  in  this  chapter  will  always 
appear  the  more  forcible,  as  the  human  mind  shall  be  more 
improved. 

\\'c  say  the  Gospel  narrativo  must  be  real,  because  no  one 
could  invent  such  incidents,  manners,  sentiments,  expressions, 
as  we  find  in  them.  The  Evangelists  at  least  were  not  im 
proved  enough  to  do  it,  in  morality  or  in  philology.  If  this 
be  a  real  argument,  it  is  one  which  will  appear  the  more 
clearly  the  more  we  improve  in  those  particulars.  Now  wo- 
rality.  consisting  of  rules  for  making  mankind  happy,  depends 
upon  whatever  affects  happiness  and  misery;  and  indeed 
includes  our  religious  duties,  and  the  grounds  on  which  we  1 1-5 
perform  them.  As  we  improve,  therefore,  in  the  knowledge  of 
man,  of  Gor/,  of  the  laws  of  nature,  we  improve  in  morality. 
And  moreover  experience,  if  duly  attended  to.  will  improve 
OUT  judgment!  aKmt  truth  and  falsehood,  made  upon  grounds 
of  probability.  Hence,  almost  every  species  of  improvement 
will  bring  our  argument  forward,  and  render  it  more  striking 
and  more  forcible. 

If,  as  men  improve,  the  Gospels  continue  to  seem  to  con 
tain  good  morality,  the  evidence  of  their  excellence  must  be 
acknowledged  to  increase ;  because  every  improvement  in  the 
judges  of  this  matter,  must  put  the  writings  judged  to  a  new 
trial.  And  if,  as  men  improved,  the  gospel  morality  should 


I.  Xiv.    1.]  AND    FICTITIOUS     NARRATIVES.  103 

I.  appear  more  and  more  excellent,  the  argument  in  favour  of  its 
divine  original  would  be  irresistible. 

History  seems  to  justify  our  giving  into  this  train  of 
thought :  false  gospels  (weak  and  foolish  as  they  were)  would 
not  have  spread,  if  they  had  not  pleased1.  The  very  absurd 
and  silly  stories  of  Pliiloxtrnt.ux  are  said  to  have  occasioned 
trouble  in  the  Church  at  one2  time.  We  have  not  now  the  least 
idea  of  attending  to  such  fables  ;  yet  we  admire  the  canoni 
cal  Gospels :  we  may  therefore  say,  that  these  have  been  rising 
in  estimation  :  for,  however  they  might  be  admired  at  first, 
yet,  whilst  foolish  writings  were  also  admired,  admiration  im 
plied  but  little  real  excellence.  As  the  false  gospels  have 
sunk  in  credit,  the  true  Gospels  have  risen  ;  even  though  the 
admiration  of  thorn  now  should  not  be  stronger  than  it  was 
at  first. 

Bishop  Hurd  has  shewn,  by  his  Sermons,  how  a  great 
146  critic  (in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word)  may  open  new  beau 
ties  and  excellencies  of  Scripture  ;  and  the  more  we  improve 
our  minds,  the  more  we  admire  the  passages  exhibited  in  the 
eleventh  section  of  this  chapter.  Other  men  will  hereafter 
probably  admire  them  more. 

Thus,  every  new  improvement  of  the  human  mind  will 
discover  new  instances  of  the  excellence  of  Christianity  ;  and 
every  new  instance  of  its  excellence  will  be  a  new  proof  of 
its  truth. 

Well  may  the  learned  Daille  say,  as  he  does,  "  La  sagesse 
exquise  et  Finestimable  beaute  de  la  discipline  meme  de  Jesus 
Christ,  est  (je  Tavoue)  le  plus  fort  et  le  plus  sur  argument  de 
sa  3verite.1t> 


U7  CHAPTER    XIV. 

OF    THE    EVIDENCE     WHICH    A    BOOK    MAY    CONTAIN    IN    ITSELF 
OF     THE    TRUTHS     OF     FACTS     RELATED    IN     IT. 

1.  IN  the  introduction  to  this  set  of  chapters,  beginning 
with  the  12th  and  extending  to  the  end  of  this  book,  it  was 
laid  down,  that  the  history  which  the  writers  of  the  New 

1  Jer.  Jones,  vol.  i.  p.  .'>.  *  On   the  Fathers,  near  the    end,   p. 

8  Mosheim,  vol.  i.  8vo.  p.  2"i'».  I   518. 


104?  INTERNAL     EVIDENCE  [I.   xiv.  2—4. 

Testament  give,  contains  in  itself,  and  implies,  sufficient  testi-  I. 
mony  of  the  principal  facts  recorded.  This  we  are  now  to  consi 
der  more  at  large ;  and  every  thing  proved  will  go  to  confirm 
the  proposition  contained  in  the  heads  of  lectures,  that  the 
Gospel  narratives  were  not  invented.  In  order  that  our  rea 
soning  on  this  subject  may  have  its  free  course,  and  its  proper 
weight  and  effect,  it  will  be  expedient,  before  we  speak  of  the 
New  Testament,  to  take  a  general  view  of  the  nature  of 
internal  historical  evidence ;  and  to  illustrate  our  general 
observations  by  examples  about  which  those  who  want  con 
viction  with  regard  to  revelation  have  no  prejudices.  It  is 
most  usual  to  offer  the  general  observation  first,  and  the 
particular  instances  or  illustrations  afterwards ;  but  I  am,  on 
most  occasions,  inclined  to  reverse  this  method ;  as  I  think  ge 
neral  truth  is  most  easily  understood  after  particular  instances ; 
it  being  only  an  enlarging  of  those  instances,  and  an  extending 
them  to  other  particulars,  till  the  observation  is  seen  to  be 
capable  of  being  applied  to  all. 

I  may,  therefore,  be  permitted  to  mention  instances  first, 
when  that  seems  most  convenient. 

2.  On  this  footing  I  observe,  that,  if  Livy,  in  his  historical   11-8 
writings,  gives  an  account  of  any  event  which   might  easily 
have  been  contradicted,   and  which,  if  false,  probably   would 
have  been  contradicted  at  or  near  the  time  when  he  published 
them,  and  that  account  never  was  contradicted  or  refuted  by 
any    cotemporary    historians,    epistolary   correspondence,    &c., 
the  mere  silence  strongly  tends  to  make  such  account  credible. 

It  seems  unnecessary,  at  present,  to  mention  events  more  parti 
cularly  ;  any  which  we  chose  to  fix  upon  might  answer  our 
purpose  here  ;  though  indeed  it  is  making  the  observation  but 
little  more  general  to  say,  '  Historical  assertions,  likely  to  have 
been  contradicted,  if  false,  and  yet  not  contradicted,  arc 
credible."1 

3.  If  JEschineS)  in  an  oration  against  Demosthenes,  says 
any  thing  favourable  of  Demosthenes,  that  favourable  assertion 
is  the  more  credible,   on  account  of  the  motives  to  avoid  it: 
and    the    same  if  Demosthenes   says  any   thing  favourable  of 
Philip,    or  Cicero  of  Verres.     Or,  in  general  terms,   '  Events 
allowed  to  be  true  by  those  who  must  have  wished  them  false, 
are  credible.'1 

4.  It    may  be  considered  as   a  part  of  this   last   general 
observation  if  we  say,   that  events   '  are  credible,   if  allowed 


I.  xiv.  5.]        OF  THE  TRUTH  OF  FACTS.  105 

I.  to  be  true  by  those  who  deny  their  plain  consequences.'' 
Because,  when  a  person  denies  the  plain  consequences  of  a 
fact,  lie  would  wish  to  deny  the  fact,  if  he  could  with  any 
appearance  of  candour  ;  the  falsehood  of  the  fact  would  most 
completely  rid  him  of  the  consequences  by  which  he  is 
troubled.  Was  Aristides  just?  yes;  the  plain  consequence 
of  his  being  so  was  his  being  esteemed  and  trusted,  and  his 
receiving  the  suffrages  of  the  people :  when,  therefore,  any 
persons  refused  to  vote  for  him,  at  the  same  time  allowing 
his  character  good,  they  shewed  that  they  allowed  it  unwil- 
149  lingly  ;  they  would  not  have  allowed  it,  if  they  could  have 
avoided  it ;  as  they  could  not  avoid  it,  their  attempts  are  so 
many  proofs  or  arguments  that  he  was  just. 

It  comes  to  much  the  same  thing  to  say,  that  an  event 
is  credible  when  it  is  accounted  for  absurdly;  for  whoever 
accounts  for  an  event  absurdly  wishes  to  deny  it :  indeed,  no 
one  can  well  deny  the  plain  consequences  of  an  event,  but  he 
must  account  for  it  from  some  cause  different  from  that  to 
which  it  is  by  others  generally  ascribed  :  he  must  impute  it 
to  some  wrong  motive.  Was  Aristides  just?  what  justice  he 
had  was  owing'  to  an  affectation  of  making  himself  appear 
1  better  than  other  men:  the  man  who  thus  accounted  for 
Aristides'' s  justice  did  it  in  order  to  avoid  its  proper  con 
sequences,  and  would  have  denied  the  reality  of  it  if  he  had 
dared.  Did  Charles  the  First  of  England  make  a  minute  in 
council,  that  he  meant  not  to  recognize  the  claim  of  a  certain 
prince  to  the  kingdom  of  Spain,  though,  on  some  formalities, 
he  had  repeated  the  title  of  king,  meaning  that  prince  ?  (as  we 
repeat  the  title  of  King  A  France,  meaning  the  King  of 
England)  ?  the  consequence  is,  that  he  was  sincere  and  pru 
dent  :  some  deny  this,  and  say,  that  the  consequence  is  he 
was  insincere.  Or  they  account  for  his  making  the  minute 
by  ascribing  it  to  a  bad  motive ;  thus  confirming  the  fact. 
Those  who  have  said,  that  such  person\s  affection  was  owing 
to  incantations  and  witchcraft,  would  deny  the  affection  if  they 
could ;  not  being  able  to  do  that,  they  coiijirm  the  evidence  in 
favour  of  its  existence. 

5.  When  we  read  any  of  Cicero's  Letters  to  his  brother 
Quintus,  or  to  his  friend  Brutus,  and  see  a  fact  spoken  of  as 
known  to  the  person  to  whom  the  letter  is  addressed,  that 

1  Se  ijjnorare  Aristidem,  seel  sibi  non       prater  ceteros  Justus  apellaretur.     Corn, 
placere  quod  tarn  cupide  elaborasset  ut   \    Nep. 


106  INTERNAL    EVIDENCE  [I.  xiv.  6,  ?. 

fact  is  credible,  not  only  as  asserted  by  Marcus  Cicero,  but  as    I. 
attested  by  Quintus  or  Brutus :  it  is  attested  with  the  same   150 
force    as   if  the  fact  had  received   the  testimony  of  Quintus 
Cicero,  or  Marcus  Brutus,  in  a  court  of  justice.     This  is,  in 
general  terms,   '  Facts  implied  in  letters  are  attested   by  the 
persons    to   whom  the    letters   are    addressed.1      Nor    does    it 
make  any  difference,   in  the  nature  of  the  evidence,  though  it 
must  in  the  strength  of  it,  whether  the  letter  is  addressed  to 
an  individual,  or  a  number ;  whether  Cicero  wrote  to  Marcus 
Brutus,  or  to  the  Roman  senate. 

6.  If  Corn.  Nepos  publishes  the  life  of  his  friend  Atticus, 
whilst  Atticus1  is  alive,  and  speaks  as  if  he  (Atticus)  had 
been  present  at  any  event,  then  Atticus  is  to  be  deemed  a 
witness  of  that  event,  just  as  if  he  had  attested  it  in  a  court 
of  judicature.  This  observation  is  allied  to  the  first;  only  that 
the  first  merely  states  the  fact  to  be  credible,  because  of  its 
not  being  contradicted,  whereas  this  marks  out  the  particular 
evidence  by  which  it  is  supported.  Thus,  I  call  Atticus  a 
witness,  though  he  gives  no  evidence  expressly  that  he  himself 
resided  and  studied  at  Athens ;  remitted  a  great  part  of  his 
fortune  thither ;  was  beloved  both  by  M.  T.  Cicero  and 
Hortensius,  though  they  were  rival  orators :  nay,  by  M.  An 
tony,  who  hated  Cicero,  and  all  the  rest  of  his  friends. 

This  observation  grows  more  important,  as  we  suppose 
the  number  of  persons  present  to  increase.  Suppose  a  pro 
consul  or  praetor  mentions  to  a  senate  twenty  persons  who 
have  been  present  at  any  event,  and  these  twenty  know  of  the 
assertion,  then  such  event  is  confirmed  by  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  twenty  witnesses.  How  strong  that  testimony 
is,  may  appear  hereafter.  In  general,  «  Persons  declared  (who  1.51 
know  that  they  are  declared)  to  have  been  present  at  any 
event,  are  witnesses  of  that  event.' 

7-  Nor  is  it  always  necessary  that  the  persons  referred 
to  should  be  specified  by  name :  they  may  be  spoken  of  col 
lectively,  as  a  body :  there  may  be  other  marks  besides  names. 
Suppose  Cicero  to  accuse  Verres  of  having  done  a  cruel  and 
oppressive  thing  to  an  hundred  people  in  Sicily,  whom  he 
does  not  name,  we  have  not  only  Cicero1  s  declaration  in  proof 
of  the  fact,  but  some  testimony  from  a  number  of  witnesses : 
Cicero  obliges  himself  to  produce  an  hundred  witnesses ;  he 
calls  all  who  know  the  affairs  of  Sicily  to  witness  that  there 

1  Hactenus  Attico  vivo  edita  haec  a  nobis  sunt.     Sect.  19. 


I.  xiv.  8-11.]     OF  THE  TRUTH  OF  FACTS.  107 

I.    was  about  such  a  number  of  persons  injured  :  he  puts  it  in  the 
power  of  many  persons  to  disprove  what  he  affirms. 

8.  There  were   wars    in   consequence  of  Julius   Caesar's 
death  ;   these  wars  serve  as  proofs  of  the  nature  of  his  death. 
The  orphan  daughters  of  Aristides  were  supported  and  por 
tioned  by  the  public  treasury ;  this  shews  that  Aristides  had 
been  disinterested  and   esteemed,  and   therefore  that  he  had 
been  just. 

9.  It  may  also  be  proper  to  observe,  that  the  sorts  of  tes 
timony  here  enumerated  are  capable  of  uniting  and  strength 
ening  each  other :  some  events  may  be  supported  by  them  all 
jointly.      The   assassination   of  Ccesar  would  have  been  con 
tradicted,  and  has  not  been.      It  has  been  expressly  owned, 
and  by  men  of  all  parties  and  persuasions:  it  is  mentioned 
in  letters  as  known  to  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed; — 
the  names  of  the  conspirators  have  been  ascertained; — the  pre 
sence  of  the  senate  at  large  has  been  affirmed  ; — and  effects 
relating  to  the  succession,  &c.  have  been  recorded. 

10.  We  will  mention  no  more  internal  evidences,  though 
152  these  may  not  be  all  which  might  be  enumerated.      It  may, 

however,  as  some  of  these  are  from  persons  who  have  written 
nothing,  be  proper  to  distinguish  the  evidence  of  which  we 
speak,  from  traditional  evidence  :  they  seem  somewhat  alike. 
Traditional  evidence  is  variable,  handed  down  from  father  to 
son,  admitting  some  change  at  every  step,  from  inaccuracy, 
prejudice,  &c. ;  but  the  evidence  here  described  is  invariable, 
flourishing  with  uniform  vigour  to  successive  generations. 

Let  us  now  apply  the  observations  which  we  have  made, 
to  the  evidence  which  the  New  Testament  contains  in  itself  of 
the  facts  recorded  in  it :  extending  our  proof  occasionally  to 
early  Christian  writers. 

11.  From  the  first  observation   we  see  what  evidence  we 
have  for  many  facts,  which   would  have   been   contradicted, 
especially  by  those  who  wrote  against  Christianity,  had  they 
been   misrepresented   in   the   New   Testament — by   Jews  and 
heathejis,    who   envied  and  persecuted  :    we  may  particularly 
mention  Josephus  and  Celsus.      The   darkness  at  the  cruci 
fixion  of  our  Saviour  may  be  one  instance  of  such  facts: — the 
slaughter  of  the  infants  at  Bethlehem  another. 

The  silence  of  Josephus  as  to  the  affairs  of  Christians,  is 
so  remarkable,  that  it  requires  some  separate  notice ;  and, 
when  joined  with  the  inquiry,  whether  one  passage,  which  does 


108  INTERNAL    EVIDENCE  [I.  xiv.   11. 

speak  of  Jesus,  is  genuine  or  interpolated,  it  makes  a  copious   I. 
subject :   what  may  seem  needful  to  be  said  upon  it  in  these 
disquisitions,  shall  be  said  at  the  close  of  this  chapter. 

When  the  Jews  allow,  that,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  Je 
sus  performed  "res  }prodigiosas  ;n  when  heathens  allow  that 
Christians  multiplied  very  fast  soon  after  that  reign;  we  153 
must  not  say  that  their  evidence  is  of  an  ordinary  sort.  They 
would  not  have  allowed  any  thing  so  favourable  to  Christianity, 
if  they  could  possibly  have  avoided  it.  On  the  same  ground, 
the  testimony  of  Pliny  ~  jun.  in  favour  of  the  morals  of 
Christians  in  his  time  is  very  strong.  u  1^ney  entered,"  says 
he,  "  into  a  solemn  engagement  not  to  steal,  or  rob,  or  commit 
adultery,  or  defraud." 

The  Jews  of  old  allowed  that  Christ  did  miracles,  but 
said  that  he  did  them  through  Beelzebub  ;  they  are  therefore 
on  the  footing  of  those  who  deny  the  plain  consequences  of 
events,  or  account  for  them  absurdly  :  that  is,  they  bear  tes 
timony  in  favour  of  the  facts,  which  is  peculiarly  strong, 
because  involuntary.  Celsus  is  of  this  number,  and  the 
Talmudical  writers  may  be  added ;  these  (as  well  as  many 
more  ancient  Jews)  "in  order  to  disparage  our  Lord's  mira 
cles,  gave  out  that  they  were  performed  by  magical  arts,  such 
as  he  had  learned  in  Egypt3." 

When  the  speaking  of  foreign  tongues,  on  the  famous  day 
of  Pentecost,  was  ascribed  to  drinking  unfermented  wine,  a 
strong  testimony  was  given  of  the  fact,  that  foreign  languages 
were  spoken. 

When  St.  Paul  writes  an  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
orders  them  to  correct  the  abuses  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  all 
members  of  the  church  of  Corinth  are  witnesses  of  the  exist 
ence  of  such  gift. 

In    like    manner,    when    Justin    Martyr4'    speaks    to   the 
Roman  senate  of  facts  known  to  them,  lie  makes  them  wit-  154 
nesses  of  those  facts.      That  is,  supposing  the  senate  to  attend 
to  what  is  5said; — if  the  senate  did  not  give  much   attention 
to  miracles,  they  were  at  least  good  witnesses  of  more  ordinary 

1  Grotius  de  Ver.  lib.  v.  sect.  2.  says,   ]    here  as  a  similar  instance,  if  our  busi- 


"  ipsorum  Thalmudicorum  ct  .Tudzeorum 
confessio  est." 

2  Ep.  lib.  ix.  ep.  97. 

•*  Lard.  Test.  vol.  i.  p.  29.     See  also 


ness  is,  strictly,  to  prove  that  the  New 
Testament  contains  evidence  in  itself; 
yet  such  similar  instance  is  worth  men 
tioning. 


Macknight,  Prelim.  Obs.  viii.  p.  6I>.  5  Middleton's  Inquiry,  5thly. 

4  Justin  Martyr  can  only  be  produced 


I.   XIV.   12.]  OF    THE     TRUTH    OF     FACTS.  109 

I.  facts,  if  of  such  a  nature  that  they  could  not  but  attend  to 
them.  Tertullian's  Apology  mentions  many  important  facts 
as  known  to  the  Roman  magistrates. 

The  twelve  Apostles  are  named  as  having  been  present 
whilst  our  Lord  performed  several  miracles,  and  they  must  have 
known  that  they  were  said  to  have  been  present :  they  are 
therefore  witnesses ;  how  valuable  their  evidence  is  may  be 
considered  hereafter ;  in  Chap.  xvi. 

The  Apostles  are  mentioned  by  name,  but  St.  Paul  ap 
peals  to  Jive  hundred,  without  giving  their  names.  Had  he 
been  called  upon  he  must  have  produced  them :  those  to  whom 
he  wrote  were  persuaded  that  he  could  produce  them.  Some, 
indeed,  were  "fallen  asleep"  but  they  must  have  given  their 
evidence  to  others  with  whom  they  conversed. 

We  may  remember,  too,  that  five  thousand  were  miracu 
lously  fed  with  loaves  and  fishes. 

The  effects  of  the  Gospel  history  were  very  strong,  and  there 
fore  they  strongly  prove  its  truth.  How  strong  they  were  will 
appear  best  in  Chapter  xvm. ;  but  it  is  almost  sufficient  to  say, 
that  every  conversion  was  a  powerful  effect,  and  therefore  every 
convert  a  powerful  witness.  When  we  consider  how  much  each 
convert6  gave  up,  how  much  he  hazarded,  and  how  much  he 
underwent,  we  cannot  but  conclude  that  he  had  carefully7 
weighed  all  the  evidence  for  and  against  his  new  religion. 
155  The  sorts  of  evidence  here  mentioned  will  unite  in  proving 
the  gift  of  tongues,  as  well  as  the  death  of  Julius  Ccesar. 
It  has  not  been  contradicted ;  it  was  allowed  unwillingly  ;  it 
is  taken  for  granted  in  letters ;  many  are  affirmed  to  have 
been  present  at  it,  some  of  whom  are  named  ;  and  its  effects 
have  appeared  in  multitudes  of  conversions  to  Christianity. 

12.  Nothing  now  remains  of  what  has  been  proposed, 
except  the  observations  concerning  Josephus.  It  seems  strange 
that  Josephus  should  have  said  nothing  about  Christians, 
except  one  thing  about  John  the  Baptist :  and  the  question 
is,  how  are  we  to  account  for  his  silence  ?  Some  will  say  he 
has  said  something  about  Christians,  for  he  has  magnified 
their  leader;  there  is,  no  doubt,  a  passage  in  his  works  to  that 
purpose,  but  I  believe  it  to  be  an  interpolation.  The  reasons 
on  which  this  opinion  is  founded  would  be  too  tedious  for  an 
undertaking  such  as  ours ;  they  may  be  seen  in  Lardnefs 
ancient  Testimonies,  where  reference  is  made  to  authors  on 
6  Acts  iv.  34.  '  Powell,  p.  80.  Lard.  Jewish  Test.  p.  13,  28. 


110  INTERNAL    EVIDENCE,    &C.  [I.  xiv.  12. 

both  sides  of  the  question.  Others  will  say  the  passage  about  I. 
John  Baptist  is  an  interpolation,  but  I  think  most  students 
will  no\v  think  it  is  not.  There  is  another  passage  about 
James  the  Just,  brother  of  our  Lord,  which  I  believe  to  be 
spurious.  Leaving  these  matters  to  be  determined  in  your 
critical  researches,  I  will  presume  that  Josephus  is  silent 
about  Christians  properly  so  called,  and  will  inquire  into  the 
cause  of  his  silence. 

It  seems  utterly  incredible  that  this  silence  should  be 
otherwise  than  intended.  He  lived  from  the  year  37  to  beyond 
the  year  90 :  Christians  had  that  name  (Christians)  at  An- 
tioch  in  the  year  40  :  he  lived  much  in  the  world  as  a  general 
and  a  courtier^  though  he  was  originally  a  priest.  He  lived 
at  Rome,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  Roman  affairs :  he 
must  have  known  the  persecution  under  Nero  perfectly  well.  156 
What  was  his  motive  for  never  mentioning  those  people,  who 
were  grown  numerous  and  important  in  his  time,  who  founded 
their  religion  on  his  own,  cannot  be  said  with  absolute  cer 
tainty  ;  but  probably  it  was  a  mixture  of  hatred  and  respect 
for  the  Christians.  Not  willing  to  speak  well  of  them,  not 
able  to  speak  ill  with  any  success,  he  judged  that  he  could 
not  do  them  more  harm  than  by  passing  them  over  in  silence. 
And  this  agrees  with  his  character.  He  was  by  no  means  a 
man  to  make  a  point  of  conscience  of  omitting  no  truth.  He 
omitted  the  history  of  worshipping  the  golden  calf ;  he  never 
uses  the  word  Zion ;  he  was,  in  short,  a  true  worldly  man  :  he 
was  hated  by  his  own  nation  ;  he  wanted  to  make  Vespasian 
the  Messiah !  Professor  Bullet  argues  upon  facts,  and  con 
cludes,  that  Josephus  paid  an  high  regard  to  the  character1  of 
Christ.  I  think  the  number  of  instances  which  the  Professor 
gives,  of  persons  of  less  note  than  Jesus  mentioned  by  Josephus, 
many  of  them  pretending  to  be  the  Messiah,  prove  undeniably 
that  Josephus  must  have  omitted  speaking  of  Jesus  and  his 
followers  designedly. 

Though  no  probable  account  could  be  given  of  Josephus's 
silence,  his  works  are  much  more  useful  than  hurtful  to  Chris 
tianity.  It  wants  not  his  express  testimony ;  he  has  inci 
dentally  confirmed  the  Gospel  history  in  many  particulars 
relating  to  Judea ;  and  he  has  confirmed  the  authenticity  of 
the  prophecies  of  the  Gospel  concerning  the  destruction  of  Je 
rusalem,  of  which  destruction  he  was  an  eye-witness. 

1  Salisbury's  Translation  of  Bullet,  p.  217— 229,  (the  end). 


I.  XV.  1.]  MIRACLES    IN     GENERAL.  Ill 

I. 

157  CHAPTER    XV. 

OF     THE     CREDIBILITY    OF    MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL. 

1.  HAVING  shewn  that  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament 
are  genuine,  and  contain  narratives  which  could  not  be  in 
vented,  and  moreover  imply  very  strong  evidence  of  the  facts 
which  they  record  ;  we  proceed,  according  to  the  plan  men 
tioned  in  the  introduction  to  the  12th  Chapter,  to  take  par 
ticular  notice  of  the  supernatural  events  related  in  them. 
Supposing  doubts  to  arise  about  these,  they  throw  an  obscurity 
over  all  the  rest ;  but  supposing  these  to  be  established,  they 
very  strongly  confirm  the  rest. 

I  know  not  that  any  one  has  questioned  the  credibility  of 
miracles,  on  any  general  principle,  except  Mr.  Hume.  He  has 
an  essay  on  this  subject,  which  makes  the  tenth  section  of 
his  "  Inquiry  concerning  the  human  understanding,"  Though 
I  think  him  mistaken  in  his  argument  and  conclusion,  I  would 
not  recommend  my  opinion  by  depreciating  his  character :  he 
seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  amiable  manners  and  a  benevolent 
disposition.  He  was  possessed  of  great  knowledge,  and  will 
live  to  posterity  as  an  historian.  Finding  popular  language 
to  express  things  inadequately,  especially  concerning  the  mind, 
instead  of  laying  the  blame  on  language,  and  correcting  that, 
he  called  all  our  notions  into  question;  which,  though  inaccurate 
in  some  respects,  and  made  so  in  part  by  popular  expressions, 

158  are  far  less  inaccurate  than  they  seem  to  be.      Mr.  Hume  has, 
however,  by  his  researches,  made  some  improvements  himself, 
and   occasioned   more   to  be   made  by  other   men.      But  the 
work  of  undoing  established  notions  and  prejudices  occupied 
him  so  much,  that  he  settled  and  determined  little  or  nothing. 
Indeed,  he  himself  has  no  confidence  in  his  own  principles,  as 
he  has  left  them.     That  he  should  be  sometimes  inaccurate,  in 
a  number  of  nice  and  subtle  discussions,  is  not  much  to  be 
wondered  at;   that   he  should  be  particularly    so  in   religious 
subjects,  is  much  to  be  lamented :  he  seldom  or  never  speaks 
acrimoniously  on   any  other  subjects.      In  other  subjects,   he 
seems  to  be  aiming  at  truth  ;   in  religious  ones,  at  confutation. 
In  treating  other  matters,  he  is  forming  opinions ;   in  treating 
religion,    he    is    supporting    notions    and    prejudices    already 
formed.     Not  that  I  would  ascribe  his  aversion  for  established 
religious  tenets  to  any  worse  cause  than  his  historical  know- 


112  MIRACLES    IN    C.KXERAL.  [I.  XV.  2. 

ledge  of  the  abuses  and  corruptions  of  religion  ;  which,  I  fear,  I. 
make  a  much  greater  figure  in  history,  and  even  in  common 
life,  than  religion  in  its  native  purity  and  simplicity.  I  know 
not  that  he  would  be  offended  with  what  I  say,  or  with  any 
objections  to  his  writings,  made  with  candour  and  good  man 
ners  ; — except  it  were  with  the  observation,  that,  in  alleg 
ing  facts,  he  has  adduced  some  and  omitted  others,  as  much 
with  party  views,  as  much  taking  for  granted  the  truth  of 
his  own  opinions,  as  any  of  the  ancient  Fathers  whom  he 
would  accuse  of  pious  fraud1.  I  could  much  wish  to  know 
what  he  would  say  to  this :  perhaps  only  that  he  acted  like 
all  other  advocates. 

2.  Mr.  Hume's  Essay  on  Miracles  is  divided  into  two  159 
parts:  in  the  first,  he  speaks  as  a  logician,  and  attempts  to 
prove  that  no  miracle  can  be  made  credible;  in  the  second, 
he  speaks  as  an  historian,  or  man  of  the  world,  and  endeavours 
to  shew  that  no  miracle  has  been  made  credible.  At  present, 
we  are  chiefly  concerned  with  the  first  part.  His  conclusion 
is,  "  That  no  testimony  is  sufficient  to  establish  a  miracle, 
unless  the  testimony  be  of  such  a  kind  that  its  falsehood 
would  be  more  miraculous  than  the  fact  which  it  endeavours 
to  establish  :  and,  even  in  that  case,  there  is  a  mutual  destruc 
tion  of  arguments,  and  the  superior  only  gives  us  an  assurance 
suitable  to  that  degree  of  force  which  remains  after  deducting 
the  inferior." 

This  conclusion  must  need  some  explanation  to  those  who 
are  not  acquainted  with  the  premises  ;  especially  as  talking  of 
the  falsehood  of  a  testimony  as  being  miraculous  (very  incon 
sistently  with  Mr.  Hume's  definition  of  a  2  miracle)  makes  a 
perplexity.  A  miracle,  if  there  were  any  such  thing,  must  be 
"  a  transgression  of  a  law  3  of  nature.1'  Now  the  question  is, 
can  we  believe  an  event  to  have  happened,  which  is  such  a 
transgression,  upon  human  testimony?  First,  on  what  do  we 
believe  the  existence  of  any  law  of  nature  ?  on  experience. 
Next,  on  what  do  we  believe  human  testimony?  on  experience. 
When  therefore  we  believe  a  miracle,  we  oppose  two  experi 
ences  ;  if  that  for  the  testimony  was  the  stronger,  then,  in 
some  sense,  the  falsehood  of  the  testimony  might  be  called 

1  See  Leland  on  the  Miracles  said  to  |       2  UA  transgression  of  a  law  of  na- 
be  performed  at  the  Tomb  of  the  Abbe'      ture,  by  a  particular  volition  of  the  Deity, 

de  Paris :  and  Mr.  des  Vanix,  quoted  by  i   or  by  the  interposition  of  some  invisible 

him.     View  of  Deistical  Writers,  letter  :   agent.1' — 8vo.  p.  121);  Essays. 
xix.  p.  321,  322.  3  Hume,  Uvo.  p.  129. 


I.  XV.  3-5.]  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  113 

I.  "  more  miraculous"  than  the  transgression  of  the  law  of 
nature ;  and  our  belief  is  finally  grounded  on  the  difference 
between  the  two  testimonies  opposed4. 

160  3.  To  some,  perhaps,  this  argument  may  seem  to  come 
within  Mr.  Hume's  description5  of  those  of  Dr.  Berkeley ; 
"  they  admit  of  no  answer,  and  produce  no  conviction."  Yet 
it  seems  that  an  examination  of  it  may  be  productive  of 
benefit,  with  a  view  both  to  our  judgment  of  truth,  and  our 
principles  of  religion. 

My  general  idea  of  Mr.  Hume's  argument  is,  that  it  is  an 
instance  of  that  very  species  of  fallacy  which  he  himself  has, 
in  his  Essays,  laboured  so  much  to  expose  and  prevent  it 
represents  popular  prejudice  as  philosophical  reasoning.  The 
truth  of  this  notion  may  appear  from  the  following  considera 
tions;  in  which  we  will  attempt,  first,  to  analyze  one  of  the 
experiences  which  he  balances,  and  then  the  other: — first,  we 
will  endeavour  to  shew  what  wrong  conceptions  he  offers  with 
regard  to  laios  of  nature ;  secondly,  into  what  erroneous 
notions  we  should  be  led  by  following  him  implicitly  with 
regard  to  human  testimony. 

4.  He  speaks  of  "  the  laws  of  nature"  as  if  they  were 
something  which  we  knew  to  be  fixed G ;  whereas  we  really 
know  of  no  such  thing :  when  we  vise  the  expression  '  a  law  of 
nature,1  we  speak  in  a  very  loose  and  popular  manner.  A  law 
does  not  properly  relate  to  things  inanimate,  but  to  voluntary 
agents.  A  law  is  a  rule  which  voluntary  agents  cannot  violate 
without  incurring  some  evil.  Laws  are  rules  generally  fol 
lowed,  and  therefore  when  any  thing  inanimate  takes  repeat 
edly  the  same  course,  we  conceive  it  as  following  a  rule,  or,  as 
it  cannot  govern  itself,  obeying  a  law  ;  but  its  being  subject  to 
any  rule,  or  law,  is  really  the  dictate  of  our  imagination :  we 
make  a  kind  of  person  of  it ;  and,  in  some  indistinct  way, 
fancy  it  a  person  under  government,  rule,  order. 

lG'1  5.  For  instance,  we  say,  'lead  falls  to  the  ground  by  the 
law  of  gravity ;' — so  we  say,  speaking  from  our  habitual  feel 
ings,  or  prejudices,  but,  in  reality,  we  know  nothing  of  any 
law  of  gravity.  We  know  that  lead  has  fallen  to  the  ground ; 
we  know  not  that  it  has  ever  risen  from  the  ground  ;  but  what 
will  happen  the  next  time  we  try,  we  know  not  in  the  least. 
Indeed,  we  act  as  if  it  would  fall,  because  we  have  had  an 


4  This  is  like  p.  144.    Hume,  8vo. 

5  Essays,  (Jvo.  vol.  n.  p.  1/3. 


c  See  Part  1st;  beginning  of  last  para 
graph  but  one,  p.  128.  8vo. 


VOL.  I.  8 


114  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  [I.  XV.  (). 

habitual  expectation  of  its  falling  generated  in  our  minds,  (in  L 
a  manner  not  thoroughly  understood),  and  because  we  have 
acted  on  such  expectation,  and  have  found  that  it  did  not 
deceive  us ;  and  those  who  have  acted  otherwise  have  been 
punished,  or  have  incurred  evil.  But  this  cannot,  with  any 
propriety,  be  called  knowledge.  Whenever  we  set  aside  our 
habitual  expectation  that  lead  will  fall,  which  is  a  mere  pre 
judice,  we  must  find  our  judgment  in  a  state  of  perfect  indif 
ference  as  to  its  falling,  rising,  or  moving  in  any  possible 
direction  ;  and,  at  first,  we  should  as  soon  believe  it  to  move  in 
any  one  direction  as  in  any  other, 

This  is  not  meant  to  condemn  our  ordinary  principles  of 
action:  ordinarily  we  must  act  according  to  principles  which 
have  been  found  to  carry  us  right ;  this  is  prudent ; — but  we 
should  be  aware  how  factitious  the  expectation  is  from  which 
we  act — how  gradually  it  has  grown,  in  order  that  we  may,  at 
any  time,  recover  our  reason  and  judgment,  when  that  expecta 
tion  would  lead  us  into  error  or  actual  evil.  We  may  act 
ordinarily  as  if  lead  would  fall,  but  when  we  examine  into  the 
elements  of  our  minds,  and  compare  different  principles*  we 
should  keep  in  mind,  that,  to  an  unprejudiced  understanding, 
the  direction  in  which  it  moves  is  a  matter  of  perfect  indif 
ference. 

6.  Having,  then,  freed  the  mind  from  its  most  usual  pre-  16'2 
judices  relating  to  laws  of  nature,  we  may  more  safely  and 
profitably  go  on  to  see  how  it  makes  those  deductions  from 
experience,  upon  which  it  acts — by  which  it  guides  itself  in 
all  occurrences  of  life.  But  it  will  be  best  to  make  use  of 
that  term  which  is  commonly  used  by  the  best  writers, 
I  mean,  analogy.  Mr.  Hume  does  not  use  it  in  his  Essay 
on  Miracles,  strictly  speaking,  but  he  uses  it  in  his  notes  on 
that  Essay,  and  in  the  ninth  section  of  the  same  Inquiry  con 
cerning  the  Human  Understanding,  of  which  the  Essay  on 
Miracles  makes  the  tenth  section.  A  few  general  observations 
on  analogy  may  not  be  unacceptable,  especially  as  Bishop 
Butler  observes1,  that  analogy  is  a  part  of  logic  not  yet  well 
studied.  My  main  purpose  shall  be,  to  offer  some  cautions 
about  admitting  conclusions  from  analogy  rashly,  where  they 
are  remote  from  common  life,  and  otherwise  likely  to  be 
erroneous. 

When  we  conclude,  from  any  thing  having  happened,  that 

1  Butler's  Analogy,  Introd.  p.  5.    Bp.  Ilallifax's  Edition. 


I.   XV.   6.]  MIRACLES     IN     GENERAL.  113 

I.  the  same  will  happen  again,  in  like  circumstances,  we  are  said 
to  reason  by  analogy.  This  sense  of  the  term  has  some 
affinity  to  the  mathematical  one,  there  being  here  two  events 
and  two  situations  to  be  compared ;  nevertheless,  conclusions 
by  analogy  are  not,  properly,  reasoning.  A  single  event  may 
give  some  faint  expectation  of  its  being  repeated,  when  the 
same  circumstances  recur ;  (at  least  when  we  have  been  ac 
customed  to  other  analogies  ;)  a  repetition  makes  the  expecta 
tion  stronger;  and  the  more  constant  the  repetition,  the  stronger 
is  the  expectation  generated  ;  till  at  length  we  lose  all  our 
doubts,  and  expect  the  event  fully  and  entirely.  This,  how 
ever,  is  only  a  single  analogy. 

But  an  event  may  be  expected  by  several  different  analo- 
163  gies  ;  indeed  there  is  no  end  of  the  analogies  which  may  lead  us 
to  a  particular  event ;  and  different  analogies  may  lead  usfro?n 
the  present  to  numberless  different  future  events.  Two  analo 
gies  may  conspire,  and  make  us  expect  an  event  more  strongly 
than  either  of  them  singly.  Or,  two  analogies  may  oppose 
each  other ;  in  which  case  our  expectation  will  result  from  their 
difference;  if  they  are  equal,  we  may  be  in  perfect  doubt  or 
suspense.  Two  analogies  may  be  very  strong,  and  yet  their 
difference  very  small.  Or,  two  weaker  analogies  may  counter 
balance  one  stronger. 

An  analogy  may  be  interrupted  by  another  analogy ;  the 
first  event,  which  interrupts  an  analogy,  may  be,  and  gene 
rally  is,  the  beginning  of  a  new  analogy.  A  man  is  seen 
riding  at  a  certain  place  several  days  together ;  he  is  more 
and  more  expected ;  he  misses  one  day,  but  it  rains ;  this 
is  an  interruption  of  the  old  analogy,  or  the  beginning  of  a 
new  one :  ere  long  he  is  expected  to  omit  riding  every  rainy 
day. 

Sometimes  an  analogy  may  seem  to  lessen  expectation ; 
but  it  is  only  when  some  stronger  analogy  overpowers  it,  raid 
yet  is  not  so  much  attended  to  as  the  first.  You  throw  two 
dice,  which  come  up  aces  six  times  together;  would  you  expect 
them  to  come  up  aces  the  seventh  time  ?  no  ;  your  surprize 
would  increase  if  they  did  ;  that  is,  repetition  lessens  expecta 
tion  ;  yet  if  you  saw  a  comet  six  nights  together,  you  would 
expect  it  the  seventh.  The  case  is,  that  when  the  dice  are 
thrown,  you  have  already  an  established  analogy  leading  you 
to  expect  that  one  side  of  a  die  will  come  up  as  often  as 
another.  We  must  be  cautious,  therefore,  when  we  judge 

8—2 


11G  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  [I.   XV.   6. 

from  one  analogy,  that  we  do  not  neglect  others  which  happen    I. 
to  be  less  striking. 

When  circumstances  are  changed,  our  analogy,  how  strong 
soever,  instantly  vanishes :  this  is  according  to  the  definition,   164 
but   is   not   always  sufficiently   noticed.     What  do   I    expect 
more  fully,  than  that  the  sun  will  set  to-night  ?  the  analogy 
on  which  I  expect  this  has  continued  from  my  infancy,   and 
has  been  wholly  uninterrupted :  place  me  near  the  pole,  my 
analogy  is  all  dissipated,  and  I  have  to  begin  anew.      Hence 
we  must  be  cautious,  when  we  reason  about  distant  analogies, 
which   we  do  not  feel,  and  which  are  remote  from  ordinary 
occurrences,  how   we  adhere  to   conclusions  drawn  from  any 
analogy  with  regard  to  facts,  which  happened  in  circumstances 
different  from  those  in  which  the  analogy  was  formed.      Our 
common   habitual  conclusions   from  experience,  by  which^  we 
guide  ourselves  in  ordinary  life,  and  which  we  find  to  be  right 
upon  trial,  imply  a  number  of  circumstances  to  continue  the 
same,   which  we  do  not  distinctly  attend  to,   and  which  we 
should  not  mention,  if  we  explained  the  grounds  of  our  belief : 
we  imperceptibly  confine  our  judgments  and  expectations  to 
limits,  of  which  we  are  not  continually  conscious1.      But  the 
case  is  the  same  in  all  habitual  acts,  of  body  and  mind ;  they 
are   adapted  and  adjusted   to  circumstances,  much  more  mi 
nutely  than  we  are  aware  of. 

The  more  any  man  knows  of  the  causes  of  appearances, 
the  more  he  is  aware  that  any  analogy  may  be  broken.  When 
I  was  young  I  felt  no  surprise  at  the  return  of  the  summer  or 
winter;  and,  I  imagine,  the  unthinking-  peasant  takes  all  usual 
changes  in  natural  phenomena  as  things  of  course:  but  now,  iGi 
the  days  never  grow  longer  in  spring  without  exciting  in  my 
mind  a  pretty  strong  sentiment  of  wonder  or  admiration  :  and 


1  Expecting  ships  to  arrive,  adapts  it 
self  to  and  presupposes  a  continuance  of 
peace ;  expecting  the  sun  to  rise  is  on 
condition  that  the  planetary  system  does 
not  change,    nor  our  situation  on  our 
own  globe,  very  greatly. 

2  Mr  Hume  says,  that  violations  of 
laws  of  nature  are  admitted  chiefly  by 
the    ignorant    and    barbarous,    p.  133 ; 
thirdly.   Also,  p.  146.   But  the  truth  may 
be,  that  the  ignorant  man,  having  thought 
very  little,  does  not  feel  much  difference 
between  laws  of  nature  founded  on  facts, 
and  such  as  have  only  imagination,  to 


support  them.  His  habitual  expectations 
have  perhaps  no  diffidence,  but  they  are 
not  founded  on  knowledge.  He  is  indif 
ferent  both  as  to  the  continuance  and 
the  change  of  the  course  of  nature.  Or 
rather,  his  habitual  conformity  to  old 
phenomena  does  not  aftbrd  him  reason  to 
disbelieve  netv.  He  is  less  aware  of  the 
mutability  of  the  course  of  nature,  yet 
more  ready  to  allow  without  good  reason 
that  course  to  have  changed  in  any  in 
stance.  He  is  most  prepared  to  admit 
a  pretended  change  :  least  to  admit  a 
real  one. 


I.  XV.  7.]  MIRACLES    IN    GEXEJIAI  . 

I.  even  in  those  instances  in  which  I  reflect  the  least,  I  should 
be  less  struck  with  a  real  change  of  what  we  call  the  laws  of 
nature,  than  a  peasant  would  be,  though  he  would  believe 
accounts  of  things  supernatural  sooner  than  I  should.  In 
judging  therefore  from  analogy,  we  must  not  proportion  the 
probability  of  a  continuance  of  a  law  of  nature  to  the  thought 
less  confidence  with  which  it  is  expected,  any  more  than  we 
should  think  a  sanguine  temper  a  proof  of  future  pros 
perity.  Improvements  in  knowledge  and  reasoning  make 
real  violations  of  laws  of  nature  more  easily  admitted,  not 
less  easily. 

Common  people,  when  a  thing  is  said  to  be  impossible*, 
do  not  distinguish  between  real  impossibility  and  a  degree  of 
improbability  which,  in  fact,  leaves  no  doubt :  on  many 
occasions  the  distinction  needs  not  be  made,  and  the  Scripture 
sometimes  neglects  it,  using  natural,  popular  language.  But 
though  in  common  life  it  may  be  neglected,  yet  in  extraordi 
nary  situations  it  should  be  always  ready  at  hand.  Im 
probability,  in  whatever  degree,  is  always  inferred  from 
166  analogy,  that  is,  from  past  events;  impossibility,  in  the  strict 
sense,  has  nothing  to  do  with  experience,  analogy,  or  past 
events. 

Though  we  speak  with  a  view  to  miracles,  we  speak  of  the 
nature  of  expectation;  that  is,  though  we  speak  of  the  credi 
bility  of  past  events,  our  observations  seem  all  to  relate  to 
future  event?.  And  it  may  go  a  good  way  towards  settling 
what  past  events  are  credible,  if  we  can  determine  what  events 
are  to  be  expected,  on  a  footing  of  probability  ;  but  yet  it 
should  not  be  wholly  omitted,  that  I  may  have  no  reason  to 
expect  an  event,  though  I  may  have  no  doubt  of  its  credibility, 
when  it  is  said  to  have  happened.  A  friend  of  mine  has  a 
ticket  in  the  lottery,  I  do  not  expect  that  he  will  have  the 
highest  prize ;  probability  is  very  much  against  it ;  but,  after 
the  fact,  he  may  easily  make  me  believe  that  he  has  got  it. 

7-  These  remarks  on  the  nature  of  our  assent,  grounded 
on  analogy,  will  enable  us  to  see  that  Mr.  Hume  does  not 
rightly  oppose  analogy  to  testimony.  When  two  things  arc 
opposed  in  the  way  of  argument,  they  should  be  quite  dis 
tinct  from  one  another ;  but  analogy  is  partly  made  up  of 
testimony.  When  we  conclude  from  experience,  we  take  in 
not  only  our  own  experience,  but  that  of  others,  which  can  only 

3  Hume  on  Miracles,  p.  141.  8vo;  this  quoted  by  Inland,  Letter  xviii,  p.  293. 


118  MIRACLES    IN    GENEIIAL.  [I.  XV.  8. 

be  known  from  testimony.  Moreover,  when  two  things  are  I. 
opposed,  as  far  as  one  is  true,  the  other  should  be  false; 
whereas  analogy  and  testimony,  when  set  in  opposition,  may 
both  be  true.  Analogy  says,  lead  falls ;  let  testimony  say, 
lead  rose  the  other  day ;  here  is  no  contradiction ;  all  experi 
ence,  prior  to  the  event  in  question,  may  be  for  the  falling 
of  lead,  yet  it  might  rise  when  it  was  said  to  do  so. 

8.  According  to  Mr.  Hume's  argument,  if  men  had 
always  given  testimony  that  was  true,  and  a  man  told  us  he  16? 
had  seen  lead  rise,  the  case  would  be  one  of  perfect  doubt ; 
the  experience  of  the  falling  of  lead  was  uniform,  so  was  that 
of  the  veracity  of  man ;  and  they  were  opposed  (Mr.  Hume 
would  say)  to  each  other,  so  as  to  counterbalance  one  another 
exactly.  But  it  seems  as  if  this  equilibrium  could  not  be 
inferred  without  some  false  suppositions.  1st.  The  course 
of  nature  is  here  supposed  more  fixed  than  we  know  it  to  be — • 
as  just  now  explained.  2.  Testimony  is  supposed  to  be 
perfectly  distinct  and  separate  from  analogy ;  or  what  we 
call  experience  is  supposed  to  be  all  our  own.  3.  It  seems 
taken  for  granted,  that  the  analogy  in  favour  of  a  law  of 
nature  cannot  be  interrupted  by  any  other  analogy.  4.  But 
the  principal  wrong  supposition  is,  that  our  experience  of 
human  testimony  is  only  a  single  analogy — such  as  it  would 
be  if  man  were  irrational  or  inanimate;  as  if  he  were  an 
automaton,  the  construction  of  which  we  are  wholly  ignorant 
of — void  of  sense,  reason,  passions,  conscience,  such  as  we 
perceive  in  ourselves.  Whereas,  besides  the  analogy  which 
we  have  from  viewing  man  externally.,  we  have  several  analo 
gies  from  viewing  him  internally ;  that  is,  from  knowing  his 
motives  of  action.  Man  acts  through  fear  of  shame — man 
acts  through  love  of  virtue1; — man  acts  from  a  desire  of 
being  trusted,  respected,  beloved.  All  these  experiences  make 
a  very  compound  and  strong  analogy.  It  may  indeed  be  said, 
man  acts  from  love  of  money;  but  this  only  shews,  that 
regard  must  be  had  to  the  characters  of  witnesses,  when  their 
testimony  is  received.  The  generality  of  men  are  prompted  to 
speak  truth,  and  restrained  from  falsehood,  by  many  things 
of  which  we  have  some  tolerable  conception ;  we  know  of  no 
thing  to  prevent  lead  from  rising,  or  any  other  common  ap-  168 
pearance  of  nature  from  being  reversed. 

Let  not  any  one  here  say  we  have  no  immediate  insight 

1  Mr.  Hume  says  much  the  same  in  some  places ;  but  without  the  same  effect. 


I.  XV.  9-11.]  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL. 


119 


I.  into  the  human2  mind:  that  may  be  a  very  good  metaphysical 
argument,  but  it  is  a  very  insufficient  one  in  practice ;  and  he 
who  uses  it  must,  if  he  will  be  consistent,  trust  all  men 
equally. 

9.  If  what  has  been  last  said  needs  any  illustration,   it 
may  receive  one  from  supposing   two  clocks  to  go  together 
for  some  days,  and  then  to  vary ;  so  long  as  they  strike  toge 
ther  they  make  but  a  single  analogy,  and  they  are  expected 
to  strike  on  after  equal  intervals;  but  they  vary:  one  strikes 
before  the  other,  which  of  them  has  gone  wrong  ?      Common 
people  must  be  at  a  loss,  having  two  simple  analogies  opposed 
to  each  other,  of  equal  strength ;  but  if  a  person  who   under 
stands  the  make  of  these  machines  is  present,  he  can  form  a 
judgment  from  a  compound  analogy  ;  he  knows  their  internal 
construction,  and  from  his  general  experience  can  judge  better 
of  the  causes  of  the  failure  than  those  who  have  nothing  to 
judge  from  but  the  mere  striking. 

10.  Our   conclusion  is,   that,    supposing   no   instance    of 
false  testimony,  we  should  not  be  in  perfect  doubt ;  but  the 
testimony   of  a  single  witness  would   be  enough  to  prove   a 
violation  or  transgression  of  what  we  call  a  law  of  nature, 
that  is,  to  prove  the  reality  of  a  miracle.      Nor  do  I  conceive 
that  in  such  case  any  one  would  have  ever  thought  of  dis 
believing. 

11.  Now  may  we  not,  instead  of  one  witness,  (when  we 
suppose  no  false  testimony  to  have  been  ever  given,)  substitute 
such  evidence  as  has  never  been  known  to  mislead  ?      This  is 

1(\9  indeed  regarding  men  externally,  but  yet,  when  we  have  such 
testimony  of  human  beings,  we  have  more  reason  to  trust  to 
that,  than  to  trust  to  the  continuance  of  what  we  call  a  law 
of  nature,  as  we  know  more  of  its  nature  and  essence.  Speak 
ing  without  any  idea  of  substitution,  we  may  affirm  that  such 
testimony  as  has  never  been  known  to  deceive  is  sufficient 
to  make  a  miracle  credible;  because  it  may  be  taken  as  valid 
proof,  and  we  have  no  proof  equally  valid  of  the  continuance 
of  any  law  of  nature : — our  testimony  has  never  deceived  us, 
our  experience  has  often  deceived  us.  Indeed,  if  the  testi 
mony  is  such  as  has  never  been  known  to  deceive,  the  thing  to 
be  proved  needs  only  be  naturally  possible :  we  have  reason  to 
believe  it. 


2  Hume,  sect,  viii,  p.  94,  &c.  "the 
same  motives  produce  always  the  same 


actions;"  &c.  "ambition,  avarice,"  &c. 
&c. 


120  MIIIACLES    IN    GENERAL.  [I.  XV.  12,  13. 

12.  But,  supposing  the  analogy  in  favour  of  the  con-  I. 
tinuance  of  the  law  of  nature  to  be  only  exactly  counter 
balanced  by  testimony  in  any  particular  case,  yet  the  analogy 
may  be  interrupted  by  another  analogy,  which  may  reasonably 
be  admitted1.  We  have  constant  experience  that  rational 
agents  use  extraordinary  measures  on  extraordinary  occasions ; 
if,  therefore,  any  extraordinary  emergency  were  to  occur, 
we  should  even  have  ground  to  expect  a  transgression  of 
ordinary  rules :  this  would  give  the  testimony,  whatever  it 
happened  to  be,  great  additional  force.  It  is  said  there 
must  be  an  uniform  experience  against  a  miracle  in  order 
to  make  it  a  miracle;  but  this  experience  is  only  in  one 
single  track;  there  may  be  analogies  in  other  tracks  which 
may  make  a  miracle  to  be  in  some  measure  conformable  to 
experience. 

In  this  case  circumstances'2  are  altered ;  by  which  means 
the  analogy  may  be  much  weakened,  or  entirely  destroyed. 
If  I  were  asked,  why  I  commonly  disbelieve  miraculous  stories,  170 
I  should  answer,  because  they  are  offered  within  the  limits 
of  ordinary  experience;  in  the  regions  where  we  rightly  trust 
to  analogy ;  without  any  new  circumstances,  any  opening  or 
enlarging  of  our  views.  Nay,  we  have  analogy  that  such 
accounts  will  deceive  us. 

Besides,  if  we  may  judge  of  the  reasons  why  the  Governor 
of  the  world  should  fix  laws  of  nature  in  any  degree,  we  must 
conclude  that  those  reasons  may  not  have  place  in  extraordi 
nary  emergencies :  our  expectations  may  be  disappointed  in 
such  cases,  and  yet  they  may  be  left  entire  for  all  common  uses 
or  purposes  of  human  life. 

If  then  we  suppose  such  a  case  as  the  publication  of  a 
new  religion  like  the  Christian,  there  is  more  to  be  presumed 
in  favour  of  miracles  than  against  them.  What  other  creden 
tials  can  we  imagine  so  proper?  what  so  likely  as  that  some 
thing  supernatural  should  be  performed  ?  what  possible  diffi 
culty  in  the  way  ? 

13.  On  the  whole,  since  Mr.  Hume^s  argument  against 
the  credibility  of  miracles  depends  upon  the  strength  of 
analogy  and  the  weakness  of  testimony,  and  is  only  this,  that 
testimony  cannot  prove  a  transgression  of  a  law  of  nature; 
since  we  have  shewn  that  he  does  not  rightly  oppose  these  one 
to  the  other,  and  have  proved  how  much  weaker  analogy  is 

1  Sect.  G.  of  this  chapter,  and  Dr.  Powell,  p.  97.  2  Sect.  6. 


I.  XV.  14,  15.]  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  121 

I.    in  itself,  and  how  much  stronger3  testimony  is  in  itself,  than 
Mr.  Hume  allows ;  since  we  have  shewn  also  that  any  analogy 

171  is  liable  to  be  interrupted  by  other  analogies,  and  to  be  weak 
ened  or  destroyed  by  change  of  circumstances;  that  extra 
ordinary  cases  are  always  likely  to  be  attended  with  extra 
ordinary  measures ;   and  that  the  regularity  of  the  movements 
and  operations  of  nature  may  answer  all  its  purposes,  though 
something  supernatural  be  performed  on  the  first  publication 
of  such  a  religion  as  the  Christian ; — we  seem  to  have  entirely 
removed  Mr.  Hume^s  objection,  and  to  have  proved  the  credi 
bility  of  miracles  in  general. 

14.  But  however  conclusive  our  reasoning  may  be,  it 
may  be  useful  to  suppose  that  some  men  are  not  convinced  by 
it.  To  such  we  would  say  that  they  ought  not  wholly  to  refuse 
their  consent  if  they  do  not  wholly  give  it.  There  are  various 
degrees  of  assenting  and  of  dissenting,  at  least  in  practice. 
We  may  determine  to  adopt  a  measure  and  yet  may  do  it  with 
great  diffidence ;  in  which  case  we  shall  not  be  positive,  nor 
hazard  much  upon  our  determination :  on  the  other  hand,  we 
may  reject  a  measure  with  great  doubts  of  our  own  judgment, 
and  our  conduct  will  be  indecisive  accordingly.  If  then, 
in  the  case  of  miracles,  any  one  unhappily  feels  a  want  of  con 
viction,  he  is  not  to  think  that  he  is  to  adopt  a  decided  oppo 
sition  to  the  notion  of  their  credibility ;  he  should  rather  say, 
they  may  have  been  performed,  though  he  is  not  fully  persuaded 
that  they  have  been. 

This  is  a  matter  worth  insisting  upon  separately,  because 
we  may  presume  that  one  great  end  of  miracles  is  to  excite 
attention,  and  to  set  men  upon  a  serious  examination.  This 
end  may  be  answered  without  a  full  belief:  let  men  only  not 
reject  credentials,  and  they  may  be  led  to  examine  particulars ; 
and  the  more  carefully  they  consider  either  the  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  religion,  or  the  conduct  of  those  who  published 
it,  the  more  likely  are  they  to  embrace  it. 

172  15.    Men  are  apt  to  run  into  a  fallacy  in  judging  from 
probability :  they  are  apt  to  take  it  for  granted   that  what 
is   against  probability  cannot   be  true;   whereas  many  events 


3  This  part  scarcely  appears  in  the  force 
it  might  do :  if  a  man  say,  that  one  thing 
balances  another,  and  you  find,  upon  ex 
amination,  that  the  first  thing  is  much 
lighter  than  it  was  reckoned,  and  the  se 
cond  much  heavier,  the  equiponderance 


is  very  much  broken  into  indeed :  the 
lightness  of  the  first,  alone,  would  have 
destroyed  the  equipoise;  and  so  would 
the  heaviness  of  the  second,  alone.  How 
great  then  must  be  the  effect  of  the  causes 
when  conjoined ! 


122  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  [I.  XV.   15. 

fall  out  against  probability — otherwise  he  who  in  a  wager  I. 
laid  on  the  probable  side  must  always  win.  Certainly  every 
man  ought  to  determine  to  act  after  the  best  judgment  he 
can  form;  but  he  should  remember,  that  so  long  as  his  judg 
ment  is  only  a  probable  judgment,  it  may  lead  him  into  er 
ror.  The  forgetting  of  this  is  sometimes  hurtful  to  religion. 
A  man  thinks  the  difficulties  attending  any  opinion  overbalance 
the  arguments  urged  in  favour  of  it;  he  therefore  takes  up 
the  negative  side,  and  thinks  he  has  nothing  more  to  do  with 
the  affirmative;  thinks  he  may  at  once  banish  all  doubt  and 
perplexity,  and  cease  from  all  farther  inquiry ;  whereas  it  may 
often  happen  that  the  negative  side  is  to  be  taken  in  our 
conduct^  when  the  question  demands  still  farther  deliberation. 

When  the  King1  of  Siam  disbelieved  the  existence  of  ice, 
Mr.  Hume  says  he  reasoned  justly;  we  say,  he  concluded 
falsely.  A  man  may,  however,  have  taken  the  most  probable 
side,  though  he  be  wrong.  Let  us  suppose  that  this  prince  had 
more  reason  to  disbelieve  than  to  believe ;  yet  if  his  judgment 
was  not  wrong,  at  least  the  peremptoriness  with  which  he 
rejected  the  improbable  side  was  surely  so.  "  Now,""  says  he, 
"  I  am  sure  you  lie."  Would  he  not  have  been  more  reason 
able  had  he  said  something  of  this  sort  ?  "  What  you  assert 
seems  so  very  strange  that  I  cannot  believe  it ;  it  is  unlike  any 
thing  I  ever  saw.  Water,  which,  you  say,  is  in  Holland 
sometimes  hard  enough  to  allow  men  to  walk  upon  it,  seems 
to  be  so  very  soft,  that  softness  is  its  chief  property.  I  have  173 
not  yet  known  you  deceive  me,  but  travellers  are  apt  to 
exaggerate.  It  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  form  a  judg 
ment  on  this  matter  just  at  present.  If  I  am  obliged  to  act 
one  way  or  another,  I  will  take  that  side  which  seems  most 
probable ;  but,  as  I  know  nothing  of  the  nature  of  water.,  or 
of  that  internal  make  on  which  its  properties  depend,  and 
what  you  tell  me  is  said  to  happen  at  a  great  distance  and  in 
circumstances  very  different  from  those  in  which  I  am  placed, 
I  will  not  entirely  reject  your  account.  Though  to  me  the 
report  of  the  hardness  of  water  may  be  improbable,  yet 
what  is  improbable  may  prove  true ;  and  on  the  whole,  I 
will,  if  ever  I  have  occasion  to  act,  take  such  measures  as  to 
be  secure,  if  possible,  on  ivhichever  side  the  truth  shall  prove 
to  lie."... Had  the  prince  spoken  in  some  way  like  this,  the 
Europeans  would  not  have  blamed  him  ;  and  the  infidel  would 

1  Locke's  Essay,  iv.  15.  5. 


I.  xv.  16.] 


MIBACLIS    IN    GENERAL. 


123 


I.  do  well  to  pursue  the  same  plan.  So  much  may  be  said 
without  taking  for  granted  the  point  in  dispute — without  pre 
suming  that  he  must  be  in  an  error. 

16.    A  follower  of  Mr.  Hume  would  offer   a  distinction 
here  between  an  extraordinary*  event  and  a  miraculous  one. 
A  miraculous  event,  he  would  say,  is  a  contradiction  to  our 
experience  in  well  known  circumstances,  or  all  circumstances 
continuing  the  same ;  an  extraordinary  event  is  one    "  not 
conformable'1  to  our  experience  in  circumstances  unknown; 
or  is  only  an  instance  of  a  law  of  nature  newly  observed,  in 
circumstances    somewhat   like    but   not    the   same — an    event 
that  to  some  men  is  of  an  ordinary  sort.       I   do   not  think 
this  ?> distinction  materially  affects  our  question,  yet  as  it  may 
be  thought  to  do  so,  I  will  take  some  notice  of  it. 
174         There  is  certainly  a  great  difference   between  a  natural 
and  a  supernatural  event,  as  also  between  the  pretensions  of 
those  who  would  persuade  us  of  the  truth  of  one  and  the  other. 
And  it  seems  very  proper  to  attend  to  these  distinctions,  in 
order  to  enlarge  and  to  clear  up  our  conceptions.      A  natural 
event    takes  place  in   a  course  of  nature    according  to  some 
general  rules;  a  supernatural  event  takes  place  by  a  particular 
volition  of  some  Being  superior  to  nature,  and  independently, 
at  least,  of  those  general  rules.      And  when  men  persuade  us 
to   believe  a   natural  event,    they   stand    in  a  different   light 
from  that  in  which  they  are  when  they    would  persuade  us 
to  believe  a  supernatural  event ;  yet  we  should  be  aware  that 
we  do  not  know  one  sort  of  event  from  the  other  intuitively 
or   immediately,  in  any  instance,   though    their  difference  in 
theory    is    plain   enough.      When    an   event   is   proposed  for 
our  belief  as  a  miracle,  we  have   two  things  to  ask :   did  this 
event   'really   happen  ? — suppose    it  did  happen,    was    it   mi 
raculous  ?      We  can  only  determine  either  question  on  pro 
bable  grounds :    but  probability  is   the  guide  of  human  life 
in  every  thing.      We  should  moreover  be  aware,  that  any  sort 
of  event  may  be  either  natural  or  supernatural ;   that  which  we 
deem  natural  (as  a  cure,  &c.)  may  be  supernatural,  and  that 
which  we  deem  supernatural  may  possibly  be  natural.     But 
our  probable  judgment,  if  we  are  honest,  will  be  a  sufficient 
In  order  to  judge   whether  a  fact  be  miraculous  it 


guide. 


2  Hume  on  Miracles,  Essays,  8vo.  vol. 
ii.  p.  128,  note. 
;!  This  is  something  like  the  distinction 


between  Tt'pas  and  o-tj^etoi/.  Parkhurst's 
Lex.  under  -re/oas,  from  Mintert  and 
Etymol. 


124)  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  [I.  XV.  17- 

must  be  familiar ;  if  it  be  very  remote  our  ideas  will  be  very  I. 
faint,  both  as  to  the  fact  having  happened  and  as  to  its  being 
miraculous.  Suppose  a  missionary  had  accompanied  the 
Dutch  ambassador  to  the  king  of  Siam,  and  had  affirmed  that 
St.  Peter  walked  upon  the  water  (Matt.  xiv.  25,  29.  John 
xxi.  7) — perhaps  the  king  would  sooner  have  believed  the  175 
missionary  than  the  ambassador:  'Ay,  now  you  give  me  a 
reason?  he  might  have  said.  On  the  contrary,  some  would 
believe  perhaps  the  natural  event,  the  walking  on  ice,  more 
easily  than  the  supernatural  event,  the  walking  upon  water, 
as  a  proof  of  divine  interposition.  However  that  might  be, 
the  events  are  certainly  totally  distinct ;  and  nothing  relating 
to  the  strangeness  of  the  natural  event  could  any  way  affect 
our  reasoning  on  the  supernatural  one.  The  ambassador 
would  say,  '  Water  sometimes  hardens  in  Holland  so  that 
people  walk  upon  it,  but  that  is  nothing  supernatural,  it  does 
so  every  winter,'  &c.  The  missionary  would  say,  '  St.  Peter 
walked  on  the  water,  not  when  it  was  frozen,  nor  according 
to  any  general  law  of  nature,  but  when  it  was  in  its  fluid 
state,  as  the  Indian  rivers  are,'  &c.  on  purpose  to  shew  by  a 
supernatural  power  the  truth  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  just 
then  beginning  to  be  published.  How  could  one  of  these 
explanations  possibly  interfere  with  the  other  ? 

17.  There  is  another  distinction,  which  I  look  upon  to  be 
very  important;  and  that  is,  between  expecting  like  events, 
and  disbelieving  unlike. 

We  are  perpetually  deceived  by  our  imaginations:  a  jingle 
of  words,  a  slight  resemblance  of  things,  or  a  seeming  contrast, 
carries  all  our  reasonings  before  it.  Because  we  by  habit 
expect  like  things  to  follow  in  like  circumstances,  we  take  for 
granted  that  we  ought  to  oppose  our  expectation  to  unlike 
things.  But  our  expectation  is  merely  factitious  and  mechani 
cal  ;  it  has  nothing  to  do  out  of  its  proper  place ;  take  away 
the  chain  of  events  to  which  it  has  owed  its  birth  and  growth, 
and  on  which  it  constantly  depends,  and  it  is  perfectly  useless; 
nay,  it  loses  its  very  being.  The  illustration  used  before1,  about  176 
change  of  circumstances,  might  be  applied  here.  Nothing 
should  be  conceived  as  belonging  to  any  analogy  but  the  train 
of  events  on  which  it  is  founded,  and  the  expectations  arising 
from  them  ;  to  admit  any  other  kind  of  conclusion  is  to  admit 
what  is  perfectly  groundless,  and  must  of  course  lead  to  error. 

1  Sect.  6. 


I.  XV.  18,  19.]  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  125 

I.  Though  expecting  an  event  may  make  us  feel  some  shock 
when  it  does  not  happen,  yet  a  shock  at  missing  a  step  does 
not  make  us  disbelieve  any  thing;  or,  though  we  feel  some 
expectation  that  nothing  will  happen  that  is  inconsistent  with 
an  expected  event,  yet  we  must  not  deceive  ourselves:  we  have 
no  right  to  encourage  the  latter  sort  of  expectation.  To  be 
justified  in  expecting  like  events,  we  need  only  have  had 
experience;  to  be  justified  in  disbelieving  unlike,  we  should 
know  all  the  powers  of  nature,  all  the  designs  of  God. 

18.  There  seems  to  be  one  unsteadiness  in  Mr.  Hume's 
reasoning,  which  should  be  noted  :  he  seems  not  always  to  keep 
perfectly  distinct  the  two  ideas ;  "  we  do  not  believe" — and 
"  we2  ought  not  to  believe."  He  seems  sometimes  to  take  our 
actual  disbelief  as  a  proof  that  we  ought  to  disbelieve ;  and 
yet  sometimes  he  blames  us  for  believing.  Whereas,  if  our 
disbelieving  was  an  argument  that  we  ought  to  disbelieve,  our 
believing  should  be  an  argument  that  we  ought  to  believe...  I 
will  not  dwell  long  here,  as  that  would  detain  us  too  long,  in  a 
matter  not  very  important ;  and  as  perhaps  some  part  of  the 
unsteadiness  I  speak  of  may  be  found  in  most  men's  reasonings 
about  the  force  of  experience,  and  is  to  be  ascribed  to  what  has 
been  mentioned  before,  that  analogy  is  a  part  of  logic  which 
177  has  not  been  well  attended  to3.  I  will  therefore  content 
myself  with  suggesting  the  idea  to  Mr.  Hume's  readers :  they 
will  examine  more  particularly,  and  determine  for  themselves. 
In  order  to  set  all  belief  of  miracles  in  a  contemptible  light, 
those  faults  are  enumerated  which  occasion  their  being  be 
lieved  too  easily.  And  then  it  is  to  follow,  that  however 
careful  men  are — if  they  believe  at  all,  their  belief  is  owing 
to  those  faults.  And  this  artifice  does  succeed  too  frequently. 
19.  The  principal  fault  in  men  which  makes  them  receive 
accounts  of  miracles  too  easily  is  credulity;  and  the  reason 
why  men  reject  the  belief  of  miracles,  is  a  dread  of  being 
despised  for  credulity,  as  a  weakness  unworthy  of  a  man  of 
sense.  Incredulity  they  are  not  near  so  much  ashamed  of;, 
but  yet,  when  one  comes  to  think,  they  both  imply  error, 
nay,  as  before  observed1,  both  the  same  kind  of  error,  follow 
ing  a  weaker  probability  in  preference  to  a  stronger.  And 
surely,  taking  equal  distances  from  the  truth,  the  credulous 
man  may  be  as  wise  as  the  incredulous:  incredulity  rejects  the 

2  P.  131,  8vo.  I   to  under  sect.  f>,  beginning. 

3  Intr.  to  Butler's  Analogy,  referred  I       4  Chap.  xii.  Sect.  Iti. 


126  MIRACLES    IN    GENERAL.  [I.  XV.  20,  2J. 

experience  of  other  men,  and  neglects  warnings  and  cautions  ;  I. 
credulity  only  (in  a  comman  way)  carries  caution  to  excess. 
Both  may  doubtless  be  hurtful ;  and  incredulity  has  less  the 
appearance  of  being  duped,  to  ordinary  judges  ;  but  to  a  real 
philosopher,  the  credulous  man  will  appear  as  rational  as  the 
incredulous. 

20.  The  belief  of  miracles  is  also  owing,  we  are  told,  to 
the  pleasure  of  indulging  the  passion  or  sentiment  of  admira 
tion^   and  other  passions  or  sentiments  which  get  involved  in 
miraculous  stories; — and  so  it  is  to  be  insinuated,  that,  if  it 
was  not  for  this  pleasure,  miracles  would  never  be  believed  at 

all.  Admiration  is  certainly  a  very  pleasing  and  interesting  178 
sentiment,  and  great  advantages  have  been  taken  of  it  to  lead 
men  into  error ;  but  that  all  facts  which  have  excited  admira 
tion  are  to  be  disbelieved,  is  a  very  extravagant  conclusion. 
The  observation  aifords  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  ex 
amine  carefully  into  the  circumstances  attending  miracles;  and 
consider  whether  the  witnesses  of  them  are  enthusiastic  or 
superstitious.  It  gives  us  a  right  to  require,  that  they  should 
be  calm,  reasonable,  sober-minded,  as  well  as  ingenuous,  and 
lovers  of  truth ;  but  it  can  carry  us  no  farther.  Any  passion 
may  be  an  occasion  of  self-deceit,  or  of  falsehood ;  those  who 
wish  much  to  gratify  it,  and  make  little  resistance,  will  gratify 
it  at  any  rate ;  with  truth,  if  they  can  ;  if  not,  with  falsehood  ; 
but  surely  no  one,  on  this  account,  despairs  of  distinguishing 
truth  from  falsehood,  when  the  inquiry  seems  worthy  of  atten 
tion.  Love  of  praise,  resentment,  ambition,  have  given  birth 
to  numberless  falsehoods;  but  have  not  such  falsehoods  been 
often  discoverable  ?  nay,  have  they  not  generally  been  founded 
on  truth  ?  could  they  have  succeeded  in  any  degree  without 
some  assistance  from  truth? 

21.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  the  accounts  of  a  very  great 
number  of  miracles  which  we  find  in  books  are  without  founda 
tion    in  truth  ;    but  surely    that  does   not  make  all  miracles 
incredible.      Many  ancient  writings,  heathen  as  well  as  Chris 
tian,  are  most   probably  forged,  but  every   one  believes  that 
some  are  genuine.      In  all  subjects,  falsehood  is  mixed  with 
truth  ;    it    would    not    be   reasonable   to   give    up   the    truth 
on    that    account :    to   separate    truth  from   falsehood,    is   the 
great    business  of  the  human   understanding,  and   that  from 
which   it   will  receive   the  greatest   improvement.      Flatterers 
may  mix  with  real  friends,  but  we  are  not  to  give  up  friend-  179 


I.  XV.  22.]  MIRACLES    IX    GENERAL.  127 

I.  ship  because,  in  some  instances,  we  have  had  reason  to  suspect 
flattery. 

In  fact,  the  forged  miracles  have  been  very  silly  businesses ; 
and  have,  by  their  folly,  made  those,  which  we  believe,  more, 
not  less,  estimable. 

22.  We  have  indeed  reason  enough  to  restrain  our  cre 
dulity,  and  guard  ourselves  against  the  excesses  of  our  devout 
admiration  and  other  seducing  passions.  If  we  could  go  farther, 
and  settle  some  criteria  of  true  miracles,  it  might  answer 
many  good  purposes.  The  great  difficulty  seems  to  be,  that 
any  criteria  might  give  occasion  to  new  forgeries,  more  artful 
than  the  preceding ;  but  still  perhaps  something  might  be 
done.  As  this  subject  is  to  be  resumed  in  the  next  chapter, 
we  may  treat  it  the  more  briefly  here : 

True  miracles  may  be  frequently  distinguished  from  false, 
by  the  occasions  on  which  they  are  performed,  by  the  manner 
and  the  matter  of  them. 

If  they  arc  performed  on  common  and  trivial  occasions 
they  are  suspicious ;  for  a  considerable  part  of  the  proof  of 
their  credibility  arose  from  their  being  extraordinary  measures, 
taken  upon  extraordinary  occasions.  If  they  are  said  to  have 
been  performed  at  times  when  things  were  in  an  ordinary  train, 
or  in  support  of  a  religion  well  established,  or  of  a  powerful 
party,  or  of  folly  and  fanaticism,  they  are  suspicious :  whereas, 
if  they  are  said  to  have  been  performed  when  any  great  and 
important  change  was  taking  place  in  the  dispensations  of 
Heaven,  when  the  supporters  of  true  religion  were  very  weak, 
and  in  favour  of  rational  religion  and  improved  morality,  they 
then  seem  reasonable,  and  therefore  are,  upon  competent  testi 
mony,  credible. 

A  judgment  might  be  built  upon  the  manner  in  which 
ISO  miracles  should  be  performed.  A  modest,  simple,  sober  man 
ner  would  make  miracles  much  more  credible  than  a  proud, 
ostentatious,  fanatical  manner. 

If  the  matter  shewed  a  regular  plan,  a  durable  and  con 
stant  attention  to  some  great  and  rational  purpose,  it  could  not 
but  add  to  their  credibility. 

Chambers  says,  in  his  Dictionary,  the  criteria  are  not 
agreed  upon  ;  and  perhaps  there  may  always  be  doubt  enough 
to  exercise  the  understanding  and  try  the  heart ;  yet  much 
Unght  be  done,  at  any  time,  by  one  who  was  sincere  and 
attentive.  Nay,  I  know  not  why  we  might  not  refer  some- 


128  MIRACLES    OK    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         [I.Xvi.  1. 

thing  to  the  same  powers  of  judging  which  we  have  about  pru-  I. 
dence,  beauty,  virtue,  &c. — call  it  common  sense,  or  what  you 
please,  which  we  scarcely  know  the  nature  of  distinctly  our 
selves.  Only  we  must  be  aware,  that  though  we  may  put 
some  confidence  in  our  feelings,  we  should  endeavour  to 
analyze  them,  and  to  regulate  them  by  reason  and  utility. 


CHAPTER    XVI.  181 

OF    THE    CREDIBILITY    OF    THE    MIRACLES    RECORDED    I\T    THE 

NEW    TESTAMENT,    AND    THE    CONCLUSIONS    TO    BE 

DRAWN    FROM    THEM. 

WE  are  now  to  take  for  granted  that  miracles  may  be 
wrought  for  the  conviction  of  mankind.  The  next  thing, 
according  to  our  plan,  is  to  consider  whether  any  have  been 
wrought.  And  it  might  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  Chapter  xin., 
in  which  we  shewed  that  the  Scripture  narratives  could  not  be 
fictitious ;  for  those  narrative  do  certainly  contain  accounts 
of  miracles,  and  the  writers  were  either  witnesses  of  the  mira 
cles,  or  received  their  accounts  from  those  who  were. 

But  we  will  pursue  the  plan  laid  down  in  the  Introduction 
to  the  12th  Chapter,  and  consider  the  witnesses  of  the  miracles 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  in  respect  of  their  ability, 
their  intention,  and  their  number. 

1.  As  to  ability.  On  what  does  the  ability  of  witnesses, 
as  such,  depend  ?  wherein  consists  the  perfection  of  it  ?  Their 
being  enabled  to  judge  of  what  they  testify  must  depend  upon 
the  things  witnessed,  and  upon  the  personal  qualities  of  those 
who  witness  them.  Or,  if  we  use  the  word  see  as  a  general 
term,  on  the  things  seen,  and  the  qualities  of  those  who  see 
them. 

The  things  or  events,  in  order  that  the  witnesses  may  be 
perfectly  enabled  to  speak  of  them,  must  be  common,  such  as 
the  persons  are  accustomed  to ;  must  be  placed  within  the 
reach  of  their  senses  or  other  discerning  powers,  or  must  be 
related  by  the  witnesses  immediately,  without  interval  of  time 
or  place ;  from  time  to  time,  so  as  to  be  liable  to  perpetual 
examination.  They  should  moreover  be  public,  exposed  on 
every  side. 


I.  XVI*.  2.]       MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  129 

I.  The  persons  should  possess  all  those  faculties  of  body  and 
mind  entire,  which  are  requisite  for  forming  a  perfect  judgment 
of  the  events.  They  should  not  only  possess  these  ordinarily, 
but  they  should  have  them  undisturbed  and  uncorrupted  at  the 
time  of  beholding.  Now  the  faculties  of  the  body,  the  senses 
of  sight,  hearing,  &c,,  are  apt  to  be  impaired  or  disordered  by 
certain  diseases,  or  by  intemperance  of  various  kinds.  The 
faculties  of  the  mind  may  be  disordered  in  things  of  religion 
by  enthusiastic  furor,  by  superstitious  panics,  by  a  too  rap 
turous  devotion,  by  a  course  of  severe  mortification  and  auste 
rity.  In  some  sense  also,  and  in  effect,  the  faculties  of  the 
mind  may  be  said  to  be  disordered  by  any  inordinate  passion. 
A  spirit  of  party,  a  love  of  gain,  ambition,  &c.,  are  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  disabling  a  man  from  forming  a  right  judgment, 
and  getting  a  true  knowledge  of  things ;  and,  as  far  as  they  do 
this,  they  belong  to  the  ability  of  witnesses,  rather  than  to  their 
intention.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  god  of  this  world  as 
having  blinded  the  minds  of  some  men1.  The  blind  are 
unable  to  see,  literally,  and  therefore  figuratively. 

2.  Applying  these  observations  to  the  characters  of  the 
sacred  witnesses,  would  give  us  an  idea  of  their  ability.  The 
miraculous  powers  exercised  by  Jesus  were  exemplified  in  the 
most  familiar  instances — in  cures  of  well-known  diseases,  in 
raising  an  human  being  from  a  state  of  death.  No  uncommon 
knowledge  of  natural  philosophy,  chemistry,  or  arts,  was  neces 
sary  to  comprehend  them ;  they  were  not  remote  or  hidden 
183  on  any  side,  they  were  not  done  in  a  corner-.  This  is  true  of 
the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  in  general,  particularly  so 
of  that  performed  on  the  the  great  day  of  Pentecost.  When 
related  by  an  original  witness  to  another,  they  seem  to  have 
been  related  immediately,  and  continually. 

The  witnesses  were  healthy,  sober,  temperate:  men  of 
sober  minds ;  of  piety  free  from  flightiness  and  extravagance. 
Nor  do  they  seem  to  have  been  influenced  by  any  love  of  gain, 
ambition,  party  spirit,  which  could  blind  their  understandings. 
We  find  them  indeed  desirous  of  distinguished  places  in  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  during  his  life-time;  but  they  could  have  no 
hopes  of  honours  after  his  death.  Mr.  Hume  thinks  that 
there  is  no  "greater  temptation  than  to  appear  a  missionary3, 
a  prophet,  an  ambassador  from  heaven  :"  but  those  who  were 
actuated  by  such  motives  would  make  the  best  advantage 
1  2  Cor.  iv.  4.  2  Acts  xxvi.  26.  :!  P.  142.  8vo. 

VOL.  I.  9 


130         MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   [I.  XVI.  o. 

of  their  situation ;  whereas  the  preachers  of  Christianity  we  I. 
find  restraining  men  from  paying  them  too  high  honours. 
Paul  and  Barnabas1 ',  with  all  marks  of  earnestness,  say  to 
those  who  would  treat  them  as  gods,  "  Why  do  ye  these 
things ?  we  also  are  men  of  like  passions  with  you"  But 
here  we  approach  rather  too  near  perhaps  to  the  subject  of 
good  intention  in  the  witnesses. 

3.  Mr.  Hume  has  an  invidious  remark2,  intimating  that 
the  miracles  of  the  Gospel  would  not  have  been  believed  had 
not  they  been  first  published  amongst  an  "  ignorant  and  bar 
barous  people :"  so  he3  calls  the  Jews.  Lucian  gives  an  ac 
count  in  his  Pseudomantis,  of  one  Alexander,  an  impostor, 
who  set  up  an  oracle  in  Paphlagonia,  which  had  great  suc 
cess  there,  and  some  even  at  Rome.  Mr.  Hume  says,  it  was  a  184 
wise  policy  in  this  impostor  to  lay  the  first  scene  of  his  im 
postures  where  "  the  people  were  extremely  ignorant  and 
stupid,  and  ready  to  swallow  even  the  grossest  delusion."  Had 
he  "  fixed  his  residence  at  Athens,"  philosophers  would  have 
spread  abroad  the  delusion,  and  would  have  "  entirely  opened 
the  eyes  of  mankind."  Mr.  Hume  farther  insinuates,  that 
if  there  had  been  a  Lucian  to  give  an  account  of  St.  Paul,  as 
well  as  of  Alexander,  our  Apostle  would  have  appeared  in  a 
very  different  light  from  that  in  which  he  is  represented  by 
Lord  Lyttelton,  in  his  Letter  to  Mr.  Gilbert  West. 

In  the  first  place,  it  seems  odd  that  Mr.  Hume  should  fix 
upon  an  instance,  in  order  to  rank  Christianity  amongst  impos 
tures,  which  all  Christians  would  most  readily  fix  upon  in 
order  to  shew  that  the  early  Christians  were  enemies  to  impos 
tures.  Lucian  was  no  way  partial  to  Christians,  yet,  in  this 
History  of  Alexander,  he  speaks  of  the  Christians  as  those  who 
opposed  and  detected  his  cheats ;  nay,  Lucian  relates,  that 
when  people  were  to  be  kept  off  from  inspecting  Alexander's 
mysteries,  the  Christians  were  particularly  forbidden  to  spy 
into  them  ;  Alexander4  himself,  or  some  one  presiding,  thrust 
ing  the  people  away,  and  crying  e£o>  xpurnavovst  away  with 
the  Christians.  How  could  Mr.  Hume  overlook  this  ?  or  why 
should  he  forbear  to  mention  it  ?  For  my  own  part,  I  wish  St. 
Paul  had  had  his  Lucian :  if  Lucian  had  given  as  circumstan 
tial  an  account  of  St.  Paul  as  he  had  done  of  Alexander,  I  should 
not  vote  for  a  letter  of  it  being  destroyed.  And  I  believe 

1  Acts  xiv.  15.  2  P.  134.  8vo.         I       4  The  Greek  is,  KaJ  6  pcv  i/yeiro :  the 

3  P.  146.  8vo.  I  Latin  (of  Erasmus)  "illo  pneeunte." 


I.  Xvi.  3.]   MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.         131 

I.   all  rational  Christians  would  now  recover,  if  they  could,  the 
strictures   of  Lucian's  dear  friend,    Gelsus.      The   Christian 

185  cause  derives  considerable   good   from   what  is  found   in  the 
works  of  Lucian. 

But,  to  call  the  Jews  "an  ignorant  and  barbarous  people," 
when  the  subject  in  hand  is  religion,  is  surely  a  gross  misre 
presentation.  Whatever  progress  they  might  have  made  in  arts 
and  sciences,  they  certainly  were  the  only  people  in  the  world 
who  worshipped  one  invisible  God,  the  patron  of  no  vices. 
Rome  and  Athens  were  before  them  in  many  things,  but  in 
religion  infinitely  behind  them.  Nor  must  it  be  said,  that  they 
attended  more  to  their  sacrifices  and  other  rites  than  to  the 
spiritual  nature  of  God ;  for  their  ceremonies  were  only  modes 
of  worshipping  one  holy  spiritual  Deity;  and  some  were  prose 
lytes  amongst  them,  who  only  adopted  their  principles  of 
natural  religion".  The  question  is,  supposing  Christianity 
false,  where  would  it  have  been  first  rejected?  at  Rome,  or  at 
Jerusalem  ?  I  say,  at  Jerusalem.  Any  absurd  religion  would 
have  much  sooner  made  its  way  at  Rome  or  Athens  than  there; 
indeed,  the  more  enlightened  at  Rome  or  Athens  might  have 
rejected  some  kinds  of  religious0  absurdity,  but  all  ranks 
amongst  the  Jews  would  have  rejected  all  kinds.  Again, 
supposing  the  Christian  religion  reasonable  and  true,  where 
would  it  have  been  most  readily  accepted?  at  Jerusalem 
clearly.  Would  the  higher  ranks  at  Rome  or  Athens  have 
submitted  to  be  poor  in  spirit  ?  would  the  pride  of  philosophy 
have  condescended  to  be  taught  ?  would  the  lower  ranks,  or 

186  even  any  ranks,  have  demolished  their  idols?    But  principally, 
would  any  ranks  have  agreed  to  worship  one  invisible  God  in 
spirit  and   in  truth  ?     At   Jerusalem,  the   spirituality  of  the 
Christian  religion  must  be  its  greatest  recommendation.      The 
Jews,  indeed,  by  being  separated  from  idolaters,  did  acquire 
too  high  notions  of  their  being  the  favourites  of  God,  to  the 
exclusion  of  other  men.     This  was  a  fault ;  but  not  so  univer 
sal  as  to  prevent  the  reception  of  proselytes,  nor  such  an  one  as 
would   make  the   Jews  less  ready,   than   any  even  the   most 
polished  heathens,  to  accept  a  rational  religion. 


5  This,  at  least,  is  a  received  opinion. 
It  must  be  owned,  that  Lardner  has  ar 
gued  ably  to  prove  that  the  Jews  had 
only  one  sort  of  proselytes  amongst 
them,  namely,  those  who,  not  having 


ish  religion.    See  Lardner's  Works,  In 
dex,  Proselytes. 

0  Yet  see  Chap.  xii.  Sect.  1(J,  how  su 
perstitious  Pliny,  Julian,  &c.  were; 
and  Marcus  Aurelius,  Hume,  p.  134, 


been  born  Jews,  had  embraced  the  Jew-  |   bottom. 

9 — 2 


132        MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  [I.  XVL  4—6 

But,  suppose   the  Jews  had  been   "  ignorant   and  barbar-    I. 
ous,"  Jesus  could  not  be  said  to  choose  them ;  the  Christian 
Religion    must   be    grafted   on    the  Jewish ;    Christ    was   the 
Messiah  of  Jews ;    Jesus  had  no  choice. 

4.  With  regard  to  the  intention  of  the  witnesses  of  the 
Gospel  miracles : — the  perfection  of  intention  is,  if  we  may  be 
allowed  the  expression,  to  have  no  intention  at  all :    to  speak 
facts  with  artless  simplicity,  without  any  particular  views ;  to 
attend  to  the  facts,  and  record  them  naturally  and  clearly,  and 
to  attend  to  nothing  else.     It  is  not  commonly  seen  how  much 
good  simplicity  implies,  nor  how  consistent  it  is  with  the  high 
est  intellectual  endowments.     The  wisest,  the  most  learned  of 
men  may  be  the  most  simple;  for  simplicity  is  only  freedom 
from  duplicity — from  deceit  and  disguise ;   it  is  speaking  from 
real  opinions,   and  real  feelings,   and   not  from    such   as  are 
only  pretended. 

5.  That  the  witnesses  of  the  Gospel  miracles  answered  to 
this  description,  may  have  already  appeared  in  some  degree, 
when  it  was  proved  that  the  writers  of  the  Gospel  narratives 
were  Artless:  indeed  all  the  witnesses  whom  we  could  call  in 
support  of  the  miracles  of  which  we  are  treating,  have  every  187 
mark   of  a  disinterested   spirit,  and  of  perfect  freedom   from 
indirect    purposes.      It   has  been  remarked,   that  the  writers 
recorded  the  most  wonderful  things  without  any  epithets,  or 
other  expressions  of  wonder:  this  looks  like  simplicity,  and 
such   as  they  would  not  have  thought  of  affecting.      As  con 
verts  they  gave  up  every  thing,  they  suffered  every   thing; 
and  they  suffered  in  such  a  manner  as  to  shew,  that,  after  they 
had  lost  their  Lord,  and  set  themselves  seriously  to  execute 
the  trust  delegated  to  them,  they  knew  what  manner  of  spirit 
they   were  of.     They  were  not  only  clear  of  any  inordinate 
passion  which  could  blind  their  judgment,  but  from  any  which 
should   lay   inducements  in  their  way  to  give  false  accounts 
voluntarily,  with  any  corrupt  design.      It  may,  indeed,  occur 

to  an  objector  to  say,  why  should  the  witnesses  be  Christians  ? 
that  is,  partizans  ? — The  short  answer  is,  the  professed  wit 
nesses  could  not  be  otherwise,  supposing  the  miracles  real ; 
and  what  would  happen,  supposing  them  real,  cannot  be  liable 
to  objection. 

6.  As  to  the  number  of  those  who  might  with  propriety 
be  called    witnesses  of  the  Gospel  miracles,   it  is   very  great 

1  Chap.  xiii.  Sects.  10,  11. 


I.  XVI*.  6\]       MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  133 

I.  indeed ;  but  it  seems  as  if  we  should,  in  the  first  place,  confine 
ourselves  to  the  same  witnesses  that  we  may  be  supposed  to 
have  kept  in  mind,  whilst  we  were  speaking  of  their  ability  and 
intention. 

In  order  to  avoid  any  suspicion  of  surreptitiously  enlarging 
the  idea  affixed  to  the  word  witnesses,  in  what  has  been  just 
now  said,  we  will  first  suppose  that  the  number  is  only  twelve; 
which,  considering  that  the  Apostles  were  twelve,  and  that 
Mark,  Luke,  Paul,  Barnabas,  must  have  been  witnesses  to 

188  many  miracles,  and  must  have  had  many  more  related  to  them 
immediately,  from  time  to  time,  is  a  very  small  number.     If  it 
is  an  even  chance2,  that  each  of  these  speaks  the  truth  singly, 
then  the  probability  that  the  truth  is  spoken,  when  they  all 
twelve  agree,  is  4096  to  one.     And,   if  we   suppose  it  three 
to  one  that  any  one  of  twelve  speaks  truth,  then  the  probability 
that   what  they  all  agree  in  is  truth,  is,  if  I    mistake  not, 
19,297,215  to  one. 

This  being  the  case,  what  numbers  would  express  the 
probability,  were  we  to  calculate  upon  the  hundreds  that  saw 
our  Saviour  after  his  resurrection — the  thousands  that  were 
fed  miraculously  with  loaves  and  fishes — the  thousands  that 
were  present  on  the  famous  day  of  Pentecost ! 

It  does  not  seem  absolutely  necessary  to  add  more  con 
cerning  the  number  of  witnesses  of  the  New  Testament-mira 
cles,  yet,  as  we  have  laid  down  some  principles  in  the  14th 
Chapter,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  give  a  few  examples  relative 
to  the  present  subject. 

The  miracles  of  Christ  have  never  been  contradicted. 

They  have  been  acknowledged  unwillingly. 

They  have  been  absurdly  accounted  for. 

They  are  spoken  of  in  Letters,  as  known  to  those  to  whom 

189  the  Letters  were  addressed;   though,    as  the   subjects  of  the 
Epistles  were  controversial,  and  churches  were  a  good  deal 
settled   when  they   were  written,  miracles   are  not   very   fre 
quently  referred   to  in  them. 


2  A  coin  has  two  sides,  head  and  re 
verse  :    *   represents  the  probability,    I 


that  tii-o  do  not  come  up  heads  is  — ,  or 
it  is  3  :  1 ;  the  probability  that  n  do  not 
come  up  heads  is  — ,  or2"-l  :  1. 


A  die  has  six  sides  :  suppose  only  one 
side  blue;  it  is  5  :  1  the  blue  side  does 


think,  that  one  such  coin  does  not  come 

not  come  up  in  one  die :  the  probability 
up  head,  or  it  is  1  :  1 ;  the  probability  1 

in  n  dies  is  —  that  all  do  not  come  up 


6' 

with    the    blue  side,  or  the  chance  is 
G"-l  :  1;   if  n  be  3,  as  215  :  1. 


134t  MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT,       [I.  Xvi.  ?« 

Persons  are  called  upon  or  attested  as  having  been  present  I. 
when  miracles  were  performed,  or  as  having  had  immediate 
information  of  them.  Nicodemus  might  be  reckoned  in  the 
number ;  perhaps  the  Samaritan  woman ;  Joseph  of  Ariina- 
thea ;  and  almost,  Agrippa.  I  consider  these  as  attested  by 
name,  though  we  have  not  the  name  of  the  Samaritan  woman. 

Others  were  attested  without  being  specified :  and  it  will 
be  always  proper  for  the  reader  of  the  New  Testament,  when 
he  finds  expressions  about  miracles,  signs,  wonders,  &c.  to  con 
sider  before  whom  they  were  spoken.  John  x.  24,  25,  as  also 
ver.  37,  38,  were  spoken  at  the  Enccenia.  John  xiv.  11,  only 
to  the  disciples.  Acts  ii.  22,  was  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost. 
Heb.  ii.  3,  4,  was  addressed  probably  to  a  large  number,  and 
of  persons  inclined  to  Judaism. 

Lastly,  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  are  proved  by 
their  effects:  this  has  been  mentioned  before,  and  will  occur 
again. 

This  is,  on  the  whole,  a  testimony  which  has  never  been 
known  to  mislead,  and  one  which  we  may  safely  trust. 

7.  On  the  subject  of  miracles,  it  seems  proper  to  take 
some  notice  of  the  opinion  of  Woolston,  that  the  miracles  of 
Christ  were  allegorical.  This  opinion,  in  the  first  part  or 
quarter  of  the  present  century,  made  a  great  noise  in  the 
Christian  world,  and  called  out  many  writers  of  high  rank: 
several  bishops  attacked  it.  Bishop  Gibson  thought  fit  to 
provide  even  the  people  of  his  diocese  with  an  antidote  against 
it ;  and  since  that,  Dr.  Lardner  and  others  have  opposed  some  190 
parts  of  the  discourses  in  which  it  is  maintained.  Yet  the 
opinion  seems  too  wild  to  be  dangerous ;  for  who  is  likely  to 
believe  that  Christ  did  no  real  miracles,  if  it  be  allowed  that 
he  did  some  things  which  could  be  called  allegorical  miracles  ? 
Indeed,  it  might  be  asked,  what  is  meant  by  miracles  being 
allegorical  ?  Are  the  relations  allegorical  ?  like  that  of  the 
choice  of  Hercules  ?  and  such  as  we  find  in  the  Spectator  ?  did 
Christ  do  nothing  ?  did  he  speak  ?  did  he  use  gestures  ?  For 
an  answer  we  must  refer  to  Woolston  himself;  and  I  think 
myself  fortunate  in  having  his  book,  as  it  is  not  in  the  Uni 
versity  Library,  nor  in  that  of  Trinity  College.  "  The 
Gospel,"  he  says,  "is  in  no  sort  a  literal  story; — the  history 
of  Jesus's  life  is  only  an  emblematical  representation  of  his 

spiritual  life  in  the  souls  of  men" "neither  the  Fathers, 

nor  the  Apostles,  nor  Jesus  himself,  meant  that  his  miracles 


I.  XVI.  7-]   MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


135 


I.  should  be  taken  in  the  literal,  but  in  the  mystical  and  para 
bolical  sense."  These  expressions  are  quoted  by  Leland  in  his 
View  of  Deistical  Writers;  but  I  will  give  you  some  specimens 
of  his  mystical  interpretations. 

You  will  say,  after  reading  these  specimens,  could  this 
folly  give  so  general  an  alarm  ?  One  would  think  not ;  and 
therefore  I  once  thought  this  only  a  pretence1,  and  the  real 
design  of  the  author  to  be  to  raise  cavils  against  the  miracles 
of  Christ.  The  miracles,  he  argues,  are  allegorical ;  and  this 
is  proved  by  proving  that,  in  the  literal  sense,  they  are  ab 
surd  ;  but  I  had  an  idea  that  he  cared  more  about  his  means 
l.Ql  than  his  end.  I  now  think,  from  the  series  of  his  works,  that 
he  was  sincere  in  what  he8  professed.  Nevertheless,  I  am  still 
of  opinion,  that  the  thing  which  really  gave  the  alarm  was  not 
the  hypothesis,  but  the  arguments  by  which  it  was  supported. 
Had  he  simply  maintained  that  miracles  were  allegorical,  he 
would  probably  have  been  left  to  his  own  fancies ;  but,  when 
he  shewed  this  by  the  medium  of  abuse  on  the  Christian 
miracles,  he  grew  dangerous.  And  his  manner,  towards  the 
latter  part  of  his  life,  got  to  be  such  as  was  likely  to  be  laid 
hold  on  by  the  scorner,  and  to  be  a  dangerous  weapon  in  his 
hand. 

The  way  to  clear  up  difficulties  is  generally  to  have  re 
course  to  history:  in  the  present  case,  the  History  of  the 
Life  of  the  Author  would  answer  our  purpose ;  and  I  am 
interested  in  it  by  having  been  a  member  of  the  same  society 
with  the  author.  His  name  was  Thomas  Woolston,  he  was 
born  at  Northampton,  and  received  his  school  education  there 
and  at  Daventry  :  he  was  admitted  of  Sidney  College  in  1685  ; 
was  studious  and  exemplary,  and  at  the  same  time  cheerful 
and  pleasant;  he  was  both  esteemed  and  beloved.  He  was 
chosen  fellow  in  1690,  and  took  his  degree  of  B.D.  in  1699. 
About  that  time  he  composed  some  exercises,  which  he  after 
wards  reduced  into  one  treatise,  on  the  Time  of  our  Saviour's 
coming  into  the  World,  though  it  was  not  published  till  1722. 
It  is  reckoned  rational,  learned,  and  ingenious;  one  of  the 


1  The  infidel  writers  used  generally  to 
pretend  that  they  were  friends  to  Chris 
tianity  :  see  Toland's  Amyntor,  Hume 
on  Miracles,  near  the  end.    Woolston, 
Let.  I.  pp.  3,  6. 

2  Yet  I  think,  from  misanthropy,  fee. 
he  had  great  pleasure  in  refuting,  as  he 


thought,  opinions  generally  maintained 
by  the  hireling  clergy.  We  may  observe 
how  large  a  part  of  his  Letters  is  taken 
up  in  objections  to  the  received  sense, 
when  compared  with  the  part  which  ex 
plains  the  mystical  sense. 


136 


MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       [I.  XV'i.   7. 


best  l  theological  tracts  we  have  :  I  have  never  been  able  to 
procure  it.  But  he  soon  took  a  kind  of  fantastic  and  enthu- 
siastic  turn  in  studying  the  Scripture.  He  compared  the  Old 
Testament  with  the  New.  Certainly  the  connecting  ties  are 
extremely  numerous,  and  some  of  them  fine  and  delicate,  by 
means  of  types,  prophecies,  symbolical  actions  and  words,  and 
allusions  ;  but  any  thing  may  be  carried  too  far.  He  was 
very  learned;  his  imagination  began  to  be  powerful;  at  last,  he 
saw  nothing  but  typical  actions  and  expressions  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  nothing  but  spiritual  and  mystical  meanings  in 
the  New.  The  Fathers,  by  moralizing  and  spiritualizing,  by 
their  Christian  Cabbala,  helped  him  forward;  particularly 
Origen2.  And  his  sequestered  life  might  have  its  effect.  In 
1705  he  printed,  at  the  University  Press,  (with  licence,  of 
course)  his  Old  Apology,  which  runs  great  lengths,  though  it  is 
confined  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  does  not  give  an  allego 
rical  sense  to  any  fact  of  the  New.  His  Moderator  also  seems 
confined  to  Prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  ;  only  those  pro 
phecies  have  their  interpretations  in  the  New.  He  moderated 
between  Collins  and  his  opponents,  of  whom  some  mention 
will  be  made  in  the  next  chapter.  In  this  Moderator  he  gave 
some  intimations  of  his  plan  ;  but  afterwards,  heated  by  oppo 
sition,  in  his  Six  Discourses  he  went  to  a  degree  of  extrava 
gance,  which  began  to  look  like  real  blasphemy.  A  prosecu 
tion  was  commenced  against  him  by  the  Attorney-General 
(afterwards  Lord  Chancellor  Hardwicke),  and  he  was  sentenced 
to  fine  and  imprisonment  by  Chief  Justice  Raymond.  In 
prison  he  ended  his  life,  unable  to  pay  the  fine  ;  and  refusing 
to  find  sureties,  because  he  was  determined  to  write  with  his 
usual  freedom. 

It  does  not  seem  very  difficult,  in  this  train,  to  account  for 
any  thing  in  Woolston's  writings,  except  his  derision.  In 
support  of  any  singular  opinion,  a  friend  to  Christianity  would 
generally  be  decent;  but  Woolston  would  persuade  himself 
that  he  disclaimed  ridicule  (see  opening  of  Letter  6th),  or  that 
he  was  only  deriding  abuses  and  misrepresentations  of  Scrip 
ture,  and  such  persons  as  made  misrepresentations  wilfully  for 


I. 

192 


1  Biogr.  Britan. 

2  Lardner,  in  his  account  of  Origen, 
(Credib.  chap.  38,)  owns,  that  he  some 
times  "gives  a  vast  scope  to  his  fancy" 
(See  Cave's  Hist.  Lit.  I.  p.  115.)  but 


yet  he  observes,  that  Origen  "treats 
those  as  heretics  who  allegorize  the  his 
tory  of  Christ's  miracles  of  healing  dis 
eases,  as  if  nothing  else  was  meant  but 
healing  the  soul,  &c." 


I.  Xvi.   7.]       MIRACLES    OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT. 


137 


I.  gain.  Do  we  not  find  the  Socinians,  in  like  manner,  speaking 
lightly  about  the  Trinity?  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  be 
sides  his  having  been  incensed  like  a  baited  animal,  he  was 
under  a  degree  of  insanity.  At  one  time,  after  he  ceased  to 
be  fellow,  perhaps  about  1721,  he  was  actually  under  confine 
ment  as  insane ;  but  before  his  fellowship  was  declared  vacant 
he  shewed  some  marks  of  a  disordered  mind.  It  is  said  by 
some  biographers3,  that  he  was  deprived  of  his  fellowship  for 
blasphemy,  but  he  really  lost  it  only  by  non-residence.  When 
he  first  exceeded  the  time  then  allowed  for  absence,  he  was 
continued  in  his  fellowship  from  a  principle  of  compassion  ; 
but,  when  he  heard  that  such  a  motive  was  assigned,  he  came 
to  college  to  declare  he  was  perfectly  well ;  proving,  by  his 
manner,  the  contrary.  Not  long  after,  being  called  to  resi 
dence,  he  refused  to  come,  and  then  his  fellowship  was  vacated. 
This  history  seems  to  clear  up  all  difficulties  arising  from  the 
wildness  of  the  notion  he  maintained. 

As  to  the  truth  of  his  allegorical  hypothesis,  little  need  be 
194  said4.  It  is  quite  groundless.  There  may  be  something  in 
the  New  Testament  which  may  seem  like  it.  Our  Saviour 
has  moralized5  upon  a  miracle  of  his  own :  several  actions  are 
mentioned  in  Scripture,  which  are  intended  to  mean  something - 
to  be  a  kind  of  visible  language.  Some  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
drew  mystical  meanings  from  every  fact,  natural  as  well  as 
supernatural ;  but  they  never  moralized  or  spiritualized  a 
miracle,  that  I  know  of,  without  presupposing  its  literal 
meaning.  Of  Origen  this  is  evident,  from  his  controversy6 
with  Celsus1. 

As  to  the  most  formidable  parts  of  Woolston's  works,  his 
incidental  (for  so  I  am  inclined  to  call  them)  cavils  at  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  they  may  have  encouraged  and  assisted 


3  See  Ladvocat's  Diet,  and  those  he 
took  his  short  account  from. 

4  Something  of  this  notion  seems  to  be 
encouraged  by  the  followers  of  Baron 
Siredcnborg.     See  Dialogues  about  his 
works,  p.  34.    The  Baron  had  seen  hea 
ven,  &c. — was  this  credible  with  mira 
cles  ?   to  be  sure  it  was ;  miracles  were 
not  wrought  chiefly  for  confirming;  they 
were  to  declare  hidden  truths. 

5  John   vi.  27:   but  see  3Iacknight, 
p.  344.    Some  say  the  story  of  the  good 
Samaritan   is   founded    on    fact.     (Dr. 


Jortin.)  One  might  read  Bp.  Hunt's 
Discourse  on  Christ's  driving  buyers  and 
sellers  out  of  the  temple. 

6  See  Bp.  Gibson's  first  pastoral  let 
ter. 

7  Some  Christians,  in  the  time  of  Ori 
gen,  or  sooner,  must  have  allegorized  the 
miraculous  cures,  much  as  "VVoolston  did ; 
(see  before,  the  quotation  from  Lardner's 
account  of  Origen,  Works,  vol.  u.   p. 
535,)  but  I  speak  only  of  such  Fathers 
as  have  had  works  descend  to  us,  and  of 
such  as  I  have  happened  to  see. 


138 


MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.      [I.  Xvi.  8. 


infidels,  but  I   should  doubt  whether  they  have   done  harm    I. 
upon  the   whole.      They  are  often  contemptible ;  and   if  one 
takes  those  which   are  the  least  so,  when  one  estimates  the 
good  arising  from  the  Answers  to  them,  it  is  not  easy  to  pro 
nounce  that  they  have  been  an  evil.     Those  against  the  resur 
rection  of  Christ,  which  are  perhaps  the  most  forcible  of  all,   195 
will  be  considered  2 hereafter. 

I  am  not  ashamed  to  conclude  with  owning,  that  1  feel 
more  compassion,  when  I  think  of  Woolston,  than  indignation. 
In  his  last  works  he  approached  near  to  infidelity,  but  he 
always  fancied  he  was  refining  the  Christian  system ;  his  notions 
were  a  disorder  in  his  intellects.  He  was  a  man  of  learning 
and  probity ;  nay,  of  wit  and  humour,  however  misapplied. 
It  would  have  reflected  more  honour  upon  our  religion,  and 
upon  our  civil  government,  to  have  committed  him  to  the 
care  of  his  relations  and  friends  (for  friends  he  had  to  the 
last,  of  the  greatest  3eminence  in  the  Church),  than  to  let 
him  support  himself  in  prison  by  the  sale  of  his  writings,  and 
end  his  days  in  confinement. 

8.  Mr.  Hume  has  briefly  touched  upon  the  miracles  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  at  least  upon  those  mentioned  in  the  Penta 
teuch.  Our  plan  is,  to  leave  the  credibility  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  to  be  supported  by  the  New ;  yet,  as  he  challenges  us 
to  lay  our  hand  upon  our  heart,  and  declare  whether  we 
think  the  Pentateuch  credible,  it  may  be  proper  not  wholly 
to  pass  over  the  subject,  though  we  must  leave  it  to  others 
to  do  justice  to  it. 

i.  In  general,  things  so  very  remote  from  our  customs 
and  observations  and  habits  of  thinking,  as  those  related  in 
the  Pentateuch,  will  be  most  favourably  received  by  those 
who  think  very  little,  and  by  those  who  think  very  much ;  an 
intermediate  degree  of  reflection  will  make  them  seem  strange, 
and  yet  not  enable  us  to  divest  ourselves  sufficiently  of  our 
habitual  prejudices  to  make  proper  allowances  for  them. 

ii.    The  natural  philosophy1  of  the  Pentateuch  ought  not  196 


1  Lardner's  Discourses  on  the  revival  of 
Lazarus,  &c.  are  useful  beyond  obviating 
the  cavils  of  Woolston.    For  other  an 
swers  see  Leland's  View. 

2  Art.  4  of  Church  of  England. 

3  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  Mr.  Whiston, 
Archbp.  Wake. 


4  Some  Christians  once  reckoned  it  he 
retical  to  call  stars  by  any  names  not 
mentioned  in  Scripture,  (see  Lardner's 
Heresies,  book  i.  sect.  f>).  Augustin 
seems  to  have  been  ashamed  of  this  he 
resy  :  query,  is  there  not  all  the  folly  of 
it  in  insisting  on  the  Pentateuch  contain 
ing  perfect  natural  philosophy  ? 


I.  Xvi,  8.]       MIRACLES    OF    TJIE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  139 

I.  to  induce  us  to  reject  it.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  God,  in 
order  to  enable  a  man  to  be  a  lawgiver  of  the  Jews,  should 
reveal  to  him  all  the  causes  of  the  phenomena  of  nature — 
should  make  him  supersede  the  studies  of  Newton,  and  antici 
pate  the  discoveries  of  Herschel ;  nay,  a  man  must  know  ten 
thousand  times  more  than  either  of  these  to  be  liable  to  no 
mistakes  in  philosophy,  to  know  all  the  powers  of  nature,  or 
all  that  in  after  times  may  be  discovered  by  man.  And  if 
Moses  could  not  know  all,  how  can  any  one  object  to  a  little 
more  or  a  little  less?  A  man  might  govern  the  Jews,  that 
had  the  ideas  of  the  planetary  system  contained  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  :  I  do  not  recollect  that  there  is  any  thing 
in  it  contrary  to  modern  discoveries ;  if  not,  that  may  be  worth 
remembering.  The  account  seems  to  me  in  a  great  degree 
intended  to  establish  the  Sabbath, ;  which  was  what  Moses 
would  want,  and  what  we  still  want.  But  why,  you  will  say, 
did  Moses  give  this  as  an  authentic  account  of  the  creation  ? 
Suppose  I  answer,  /  do  not  know  ?  it  seems  to  me  as  if  that 
would  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  our  whole  system 
of  religious  dispensations5.  Suppose  I  answer,  Moses  might 
be  an  inspired  writer  as  a  religious  minister,  and  be  left  to 
his  own  notions,  or  to  notions  established  in  his  time,  as  a 
natural  philosopher^ ;  and  yet  he  always  might  write  and  speak 
197  in  those  different  characters  in  one  and  the  same  tone  and 
style  ?  even  that  would  be  sufficient  to  hinder  our  rejecting 
the  Pentateuch.  I  verily  believe  St.  Paul  would  have  done 
so :  (for  we  have  a  clearer  idea7  of  the  inspiration  of  St.  Paul 
than  of  Moses,)  and  yet  no  false  astronomy  would  weaken  my 
faith  in  St.  Paul : — "  one  star  differeth  from  another  star  in 
fflory"  makes  no  difference  between  fixed  star  and  planet. 
Why  should  not  St.  Paul  be  as  good  an  astronomer  as  Moses  ? 


5  In  the  Monthly  Review  for  April, 
1792,  p.  432,  there  is  a  quotation  from  a 
pamphlet,  or  book,  which  might  be  worth 
considering  in  this  place  :  it  is  Belsharn's 
Essays,  vol.  n. 

6  The  Pentateuch  might  be  a  sacred 
book)  even  suppose  Moses  to  have  writ 
ten  only  what  happened  in  his  own  time, 
prefixing  what  he  received  from  tradi 
tion  :  the  facts  conveyed  down  by  tradi 
tion  would  be  the  more  evident,  the  more 
nearly  they  were  connected  with  his  peo 
ple.      That  Moses  was  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  was  proved  Dec.  2d,  1792,  by 


Mr.  Marsh,  of  St.  John's  Coll.  (Camb.)  in 
a  Sermon  preached  before  the  University, 
and  since  printed.  Conceive  Moses  1500 
years  before  Christ,  or  2500  after  the  crea 
tion,  giving  an  account  of  the  creation ;  he 
could  not  speak  as  a  witness  ;  no  one,  in 
his  own  time,  would  understand  him  to 
be  doing  more  than  giving  the  notions  of 
the  best  informed,  as  held  at  that  time. 
Universal  inspiration  is  a  very  impro 
bable  thing.  Inspiration  must  be  for  some 
particular  purpose. 

7  Powell,  15th  Discourse.    Chap.  xii. 
sect.  3,  of  this. 


140 


MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   [I.  Xvi.  cS. 


iii.  It  will  be  thought  more  likely  that  God  should  reveal  I. 
morality  than  natural  philosophy;  and  yet  it  does  not  seem 
clear  that  he  even  revealed  morality,  strictly  speaking,  in 
either  Old  or  New l  Testament :  though  they  both,  in  many 
ways,  tend  to  improve  morality ;  and  both  give  (incidentally 
as  it  were)  examples  of  higher  morality  than  could  be  invented 
by  the  sacred  writers.  I  have  already  said,  that  no  one  could 
invent  such  sentiments  as  our  Saviour  uttered  in  the  2last 
scenes  of  his  life ;  yet  some  duties  seem  to  be  left  in  the  New 
Testament  according  to  the  established  morality  of  the  times. 
In  like  manner,  the  established  morality  in  the  Pentateuch  may  198 
be  what  we  should  now  call  imperfect ;  and  yet  the  simplicity 
of  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  some  fine  strokes  of  moral  painting 
contained  in  it,  may  afford  a  strong  presumption  in  favour  of 
its  authenticity. 

iv.  The  account  of  the  /«//,  to  which  Mr.  Hume  refers, 
is  very  short3;  too  short  to  furnish  an  insuperable  objection 
to  a  system  of  dispensations.  Besides,  suppose  we  did  not 
understand  it,  is  it  necessary  that  we  should  ?  Nevertheless, 
I  own  I  see  nothing  contrary  to  either  reason  or  Scripture, 
in  considering  it  as  an  history  of  an  human  being,  at  first 
ignorant4  of  his  powers,  and  therefore  under  the  immediate 
guidance  of  God ;  afterwards  desirous  of  conducting  himself, 
and  in  learning  how  to  conduct  himself,  getting  into  various 
sorts  of  evil,  natural  and  moral :  allowing  his  passions  to 
acquire  too  much  strength,  and  acquiring  bad  habits,  of 
which  his  descendants  would,  of  course,  according  to  the 
laws  and  constitution  of  human  nature,  feel  some  hurtful 
effects.  The  story  of  the  Prodigal  Son  is  never  reckoned 
unnatural ;  and  he  did  much  the  same  that  Adam,  the  first 
human  "son5  of  God,"  did:  only  the  account  does  not  ex 
tend  to  the  children  of  the  prodigal  son ;  and  the  reconcili 
ation  of  Adam  to  his  heavenly  Parent  followed  after  a  greater 
interval. 

v.  Mr.  Hume  mentions  the  deluge.  The  appearances 
of  fossil  shells  and  fishes  he  could  not  be  a  stranger  to ;  he 
might  incline  to  some  other  solution  of  them.  There  have 
been  many  theories  of  the  earth,  but  I  am  told,  that  the 


1  There  is  something  to  this  purpose 
on  Art.  0.   of  the  Church  of  England, 
sect.  f». 

2  Chap.  xiii.  sect.  11. 


3  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  200. 

4  Abp.  King's  Sermon ;  my  Poem  on 
Redemption;   these  Lectures,  on  Art.  9. 

5  Luke  iii.  38. 


I.   Xvi.  8.]       MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  141 

I.   most   rational  and  ingenious  of  the  modern  ones  defend  the 

199  Mosaic  history,  and  very  ably6. 

vi.  There  is  something  wrong,  it  seems,  in  "  the  arbitrary 
choice  of  one  people  as  the  favourites  of  Heaven.'"  Mr.  Hume 
must  call  the  selection  and  separation  of  Jews  arbitrary,  if  lie 
pleases ;  but  put  yourself  in  the  place  of  an  inhabitant  of  the 
world  at  the  time  of  their  separation,  and  say  what  expedient 
could  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  men  from  their 
idolatry,  but  that  which  was  used  ?  namely,  reserving  one 
people  to  profess  the  unity  and  spirituality  of  the  Supreme 
Being.  You  may  call  this  people  favourites  of  Heaven,  if 
you  please,  but  the  purpose  in  separating  them  was,  as  far  as 
we  can  conceive,  the  general  good  of  all  mankind.  Not  that 
God's  giving  a  superior  degree  of  happiness  to  any  one  nation, 
or  to  any  one  world,  is  inconsistent  with  either  his  justice  or 
his  goodness,  any  more  than  his  giving  more  understanding  or 
more  health  ;  but  Mr.  Hume's  meaning  is,  that  the  Jews  were 
not  really  separated  by  Heaven.  If  ever  any  thing  proved 
itself,  it  is  this  divine  appointment.  Who,  I  beseech  you, 
could  possibly  separate  them  but  the  Governor  of  the  world  ? 
Consider  the  barbarism  of  the  times,  consider  the  strong 
sensual  enticements  to  idolatry,  consider  the  difficulty  of  any 
one's  despising  all  religions  around  him,  consider  the  want  of 
all  inducements  to  do  it,  not  forgetting,  that  the  worship  of 
the  One  Spiritual  God  reached  down  to  the  very  lowest  of  the 
Jewish  people ;  and  you  must  acknowledge,  that  no  cause  can 
be  assigned  for  the  separation  of  the  Jews,  which  has  the  least 

200  shew  of  probability,  but  the    immediate   command   of  God. 
One  might  as  soon  expect  a  man  struck  with  a  palsy  to  raise 
himself,  (take  up  his  bed  and  walk,)  as  a  people  stupified  with 
idolatry.      Consider  farther  to  what  this  separation  has  tended, 
how  it  has  fallen  in  with  the  natural  improvements  of  men, 
how  it  has  prepared  the  world  for  an  universal  religion,  pure, 
rational,  and  spiritual ;  and  you  will  be  fixed  and  settled  in 
your  conclusion. 

vii.  But  though  I  say,  that  the  mere  separation  of  the 
Jews  proves  itself  to  be  Divine,  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that 
strong  marks  of  a  power  superior  to  that  of  man  must  be 
requisite  to  effect  the  separation.  Miracles  were  absolutely 
necessary,  and  those  very  striking  and  awful,  and  sucli  as 

0  I  conceive  this  to  be  the  case  with    j  toiredela  Terre  et  de  I'lionune,  par  J.A. 
"  Lettres  physiques  et  morales  sur  1'His-   i  De  Luc." 


142 


MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   [I.  XVI.  9. 


would  strike  a  number  of  people  at  the  same  time.  Yet  to  I. 
these  also  Mr.  Hume  objects.  As  one  discrediting  circum 
stance  he  mentions  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  "  from  bondage 
by  prodigies  the  most  astonishing  imaginable."  One  does  not 
see  how  any  man  could  have  influence  enough  to  institute  the 
Jewish  polity,  without  miracles  of  an  astonishing  nature ;  but 
Mr.  Hume  seems  to  entertain  one  wrong  idea,  which  may  be 
less  obvious :  he  seems  to  think  that  ive  are  to  offer  the  same 
proofs  of  the  credibility  of  the  Jewish  miracles,  as  if  they  had 
been  wrought  for  our  conviction ;  whereas  miracles  are  to  be 
suited  to  those  for  whose  conviction  they  are  intended ;  and, 
when  their  end  is  answered,  the  circumstantial  proofs  of  their 
credibility  must  decay — and  may  safely.  Posterity  has  other 
proofs — proofs  from  the  effects  of  the  miracles,  and  from  pro- 
phecy.  Prophecy  affords  a  proof  irresistible  to  those  who 
live  long  after  the  promulgation  of  the  religion  in  question, 
though  it  be  less  useful  to  those  to  whom  it  is  immediately 
proposed. 

viii.  Lastly,  Mr.  Hume  seems  to  think  the  number  as  201 
well  as  the  grandeur  of  miracles  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch  a 
suspicious  circumstance.  He  finds  the  book  "full  of  prodigies 
and  miracles."  But  any  one  who  reflects  upon  the  nature  of 
the  Jewish  government,  must  see  that  it  could  not  be  carried 
on  without  miracles.  "Miracles,"  says  bishop  Hallifax, 
"  were  absolutely  requisite,  to  execute  the  temporal  rewards 
and  punishments  annexed  to  the  Law."  Besides,  the  reason, 
which  we  have  assigned  for  miracles  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Jewish  polity,  extends  to  the  continuation  of  it:  without  them, 
it  is  not  conceivable  how  the  Jews  could  have  been  kept  from 
relapsing  into  idolatry.  But  a  number  of  difficulties  wholly 
unanswerable  could  never  weigh  with  me  against  the  separa 
tion  of  the  Israelites,  the  government  and  history  of  the  Jews. 
I  call  this  separation,  as  it  has  been  continued,  the  strongest, 
the  most  undeniable  "  concurring  testimony."  Mr.  Hume 
says,  the  history  of  the  Pentateuch  is  "  corroborated  by  no 
concurring  testimony." 

9.  If  we  now  return  to  our  plan,  the  next  thing  which 
occurs  is  the  question,  whether,  supposing  the  2 reality  of  the 
miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  they  really  prove 
what  they  are  thought  to  prove  ;  namely,  the  purpose  of  God 


1  Serm.  i.  p.  <J. 

-  This  must  mean,  supposing  not  only 


that  Bartimams  really  recovered  his  sight, 
but  that  he  recovered  it  supernaturally. 


I.  Xvl.  9-]       MIKACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


143 


I.  to  instruct  mankind  by  those  who  perform  them  ?  or,  as  it  was 
put  before3,  Because  a  man  can  do  what  I  cannot,  or  even 
something  beyond  the  powers  of  nature,  am  I  therefore  to 
comply  with  him  in  every  thing  he  orders,  as  if  his  directions 
were  really  Divine?  This  is  a  question  which  had  "been 

202  slightly  passed  over,"  till  Dr.  Powell  proposed  and  solved  it  in 
his  ?th  Discourse.      I  shall  endeavour  to  give  the  substance  of 
what  he  says,  departing  freely  from  his  expressions,  as  a  ser 
mon  does  not  admit  the  humbler  style  of  a  lecture,  and  because 
two  different  modes  of  expressing  the  same  thing  may  illustrate 
one  another. 

i.  When  we  find  men  entrusted  with  an  extraordinary 
power,  we  cannot  but  think  it  likely  that  they  have  also  extra 
ordinary  knowledge,  especially  concerning  the  design  and  the 
use  of  that  power.  When  any  messenger  brings  a  verbal 
message  from  a  king,  if  he  shews  a  signet,  which  he  could 
only  get  from  the  monarch,  we  must  think  we  have  sufficient 
reason  for  listening  to  his  message,  as  expressing  the  real  will 
of  his  lord.  Or,  more  popularly,  does  God  really  send  us  a 
message  by  those  who  work  miracles  ?  if  they  say  so,  he  most 
probably  does:  they  must  know,  and  they  bring  very  good 
credentials. 

ii.  As  legal  evidence  may  be  called  evidence,  which  it  is 
the  intention  of  the  lawgiver  that  we  should  receive4 — so 
natural  evidence  must  be  such  as  is  sufficient,  according  to 
the  intention  of  the  Author  of  nature :  the  only  difficulty  is, 
what  evidence  may  be  deemed  natural.  Now,  to  reasonable 
minds,  violations  of  the  laws  of  nature  declare  the  interposition 
of  God,  naturally,  or  by  the  constitution  of  their  nature ; 
therefore  it  is  the  intention  of  God  that  they  should  do  so ; 
or,  when  miracles  are  performed,  it  is  the  intention  of  God 
that  we  should  consider  him  who  performs  them  as  empowered 
to  instruct  us.  Or,  more  popularly,  it  is  natural  to  us  to 
think  that  those  speak  to  us  from  God  who  work  miracles. 
And  who  made  it  natural  ?  God :  therefore  God  does  mean  us 
to  think  so  when  he  works  miracles. 

203  iii.    If  the  Christian  miracles  were  not  intended  to  reveal 
the   will  of  God,   they    would  all  have  answered  some  other 


important  purpose:  it  does  not  appear  that  they  did. 


Though 


3  Introduction  to  Chap.  xii. 

4  As  for  instance,  the  evidence  of  three 
witnesses  to  a  will  devising  lands,  &c. 


such  evidence  is  not  infallible,  but  it  is 
to  be  deemed  sufficient ;  such  is  the  in 
tention  of  the  legislator. 


144  MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       [I.  xvi.  9. 

they  often  shewed  marks  of  Christian  benevolence,  and  were  I. 
never  flighty,  nor  revengeful,  yet  some  of  them  caused  no 
increase  of  happiness  whatever1.  This  seems  unaccountable, 
except  we  suppose  them  meant  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  a  true 
Prophet ;  and,  if  we  admit  that  supposition,  all  seems  reason 
able  and  consistent. 

iv.  A  real  miracle  is  an  action  of  God — not  merely  a 
permission :  his  actions  must  have  the  effects  intended  ;  and 
those  effects,  when  no  abuse  takes  place,  will  be  good.  There 
fore,  if  we  know  the  good  effects  of  any  miracles,  we  can  from 
them  trace  out  the  intention.  The  good  effects  of  the 
Christian  miracles  were  to  convert  men  to  Christianity ;  there 
fore  the  intention  of  miracles  was  to  convert  men  to  Christi 
anity.  And  he  who  performed  them  was  sent  by  God.  This 
argument  cannot  have  place,  till  some  effects  of  miracles  have 
been  experienced. 

(Not  that  we  seem  more  assured  in  this  reasoning  than  we 
are  in  that  about  any  other  final  cause ;  as  the  final  cause 
of  the  dew  or  frost,  or  any  of  the  parts  of  the  human  body. 
A  miracle  may  possibly,  for  any  thing  we  know,  fail  in  its 
effect,  at  least  in  some  instances;  yet  our  opinion  as  to  the 
final  cause  of  miracles  may  be  well  founded.) 

v.  The  last  remark  (which  we  are  now  about  to  make) 
will  seem  perhaps  less  obscure  than  any  of  the  foregoing. 
Suppose  any  one  to  say  he  will  perform  a  miracle  with  a  par 
ticular  design,  or  in  proof  of  a  particular  assertion  ;  he  per 
forms  it ;  then  that  miracle  proves  that  such  person  is  commis 
sioned  by  God,  and  that  his  assertion  is  true.  Nay,  in  such  a 
case,  God  himself  speaks.  For,  would  God,  after  such  a  decla-  204 
ration,  give  power  from  above,  if  the  assertion  were  false  ?  that 
would  be  inconsistent  with  his  veracity.  "  The  God  that 
answereth  by  fire,"  said  Elijah  to  the  prophets  of  Baal,  "  let 
him2  be  God:" — Jehovah  answered  by  fire,  and  thereby  de 
clared,  as  strongly  as  by  words,  that  Elijah  acted  by  his  com 
mission.  Jesus  gave  the  friends3  of  Lazarus  to  understand 
that  he  would  raise  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  in  order  to  shew 
them  that  he  was  sent  from  heaven.  The  Divine  Power  did 
immediately  perform  what  Jesus  had  engaged  for,  and  thereby 
confirmed  his  mission  as  strongly  as  by  a  voice  from  heaven. 
This  case  differs  from  the  first.  If,  at  sea,  an  officer  came 

1  Fig-tree— darkness— walking  on  the  j  -  1  Kings  xviii.  24. 

water.  :J  John  xi.  42. 


I.  Xvi.   10.]      MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  145 

I.  from  one  admiral  to  another,  to  negociate  some  affair,  and  said, 
(  To  shew  that  I  come  not  of  myself,  whenever  I  make  my 
signal  my  admiral  will  furl  his  mainsail,1  and  so  it  proved ; 
that  would  only  be  the  testimony  mentioned  in  the  first  of 
these  remarks ;  we  depend  finally  on  the  interpretation  of  the 
officer.  But  if  the  admiral  who  sent  heard  what  was  said,  and 
then  furled  his  mainsail — if  he  did  not  abide  by  what  his  mes 
senger  had  in  his  hearing  engaged  for,  he  would  be  guilty  of 
direct  falsehood.  And  to  reject  a  miracle  of  the  kind  now 
under  consideration,  would  be  to  make  "  God  a  liar"  accord 
ing  to  the  expression1  of  St.  John.  Falsehood  is  deceiving  by 
the  use  of  signs ;  and  though  words  are  the  most  usual  signs 
of  our  ideas,  they  are  but  arbitrary  signs ;  visible  signs  are  by 
no  means  uncommon. 

So  far  I  take  the  substance  of  what  I  say  from  Dr.  Powell. 
If  it  should  occur,  that  we  treated  5before  of  the  abuse  of  the 
gift  of  tongues,  it  may  perhaps  be  asked,  why  may  not  any 
person,  who  is  possessed  of  any  other  miraculous  power,  be 
205  conceived  to  abuse  it  ? — because  the  gift  of  tongues  seems  to 
have  been  a  miraculous  communication  of  a  faculty,  to  be 
managed  like  any  other  faculty,  and  therefore  liable  to  abuse — 
to  changes  of  humour,  attacks  of  temptation,  sallies  of  passion, 
&c. ;  but  every  supernatural  cure,  every  raising  of  an  human 
being  from  a  state  of  death,  seems  as  if  it  should  be  considered 
as  arising  from  a  separate  communication  of  Divine  Power6. 
If  this  be  the  right  notion  of  the  thing,  it  is  very  improbable 
that  the  Deity  should  supply  such  power,  when  it  would 
not  only  answer  no  end,  as  in  the  case  of  languages  spoken 
from  ostentation,  but  defeat  its  own  ends.  In  the  last-men 
tioned  kind  of  miracles,  in  those  mentioned  in  the  5th  observa 
tion,  the  difficulty  proposed  is  out  of  the  question  :  the  veracity 
of  the  Supreme  Being  himself  is  immediately  concerned. 

10.  In  the  preceding  chapter,  when  we  were  speaking  of 
the  credibility  of  miracles  in  general,  we  took  some  notice 
of  the  means  of  discerning  true 7  miracles  from  false.  This 


4  1  John  v.  10. 

5  Chap.  xii.  sect.  3. 


c  At  least  this  account  here  is  consist 
ent  with  the  former ;  for  there,  from  the 
abuse  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  we  concluded, 
that  God  could  not  give  that  gift  occa 
sionally.  A  reiterated  communication 
of  supernatural  power  seems  to  answer 


wise  purposes  in  what  we  commonly  call 
miracles:  though  it  may  be  less  con 
ceivable  in  what  is  called  inspiration  • 
either  of  words  or  things  ;  either  of  lan 
guages,  or  the  scheme  of  the  Christian 
redemption. 

7  False  miracles  arc  called  in  2  Thess. 
ii.  9,  u  lying  wonders." 


VOL.  I.  10 


146 


MIIIACLES    OF    THE    XEW    TESTAMENT.       [I.  XVI.  10. 


subject  should  be  resumed  now  that  we  are  speaking  of  the  I. 
Gospel  miracles  in  particular :  partly  because  there  are  some 
texts  of  Scripture  which  seem  to  imply  that  miracles  may 
possibly  deceive;  partly  because  what  was  said  before  was 
short  and  general,  and  not  so  useful  as  it  might  be  made  by 
the  mention  of  some  few  examples. 

Texts  of  Scripture,  which  seem  to  imply  that  mere  206 
miracles,  or  what  we  dare  not  absolutely  deny  to  be  real,  may 
possibly  deceive,  are  such  as  the  following : —  (t  l  If  there 
arise  among  you  a  prophet,  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and 
giveth  thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder,  and  the  sign  or  the  wonder 
come  to  pass  whereof  he  spake  unto  thee,  saying,  Let  us  go 
after  other  gods,  which  thou  hast  not  known,  and  let  us  serve 
them ;  thou  shalt  not  hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  prophet, 
or  that  dreamer  of  dreams ;  for  the  Lord  your  God  proveth 
you,  to  know  whether  ye  love  the  Lord  your  God  with  all  your 
heart  and  with  all  your  soul." — "2  There  shall  arise  false 
Christs  and  false  prophets,  and  shall  shew  signs  and  wonders/1 
"3Though  we,"  (says  St.  Paul)  "or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed."  St.  Paul  also  says, 
of  "4that  wicked"  who  shall  "be  revealed,"  (o  avo/mos)  that 
his  "  coming  is  after  the  working  of  Satan,  with  all  power, 
and  signs,  and  lying  wonders5."  We  cannot  read  such  texts 
as  these,  and  think  ourselves  at  liberty  to  neglect  criteria  of 
true  and  false  miracles.  It  must  be  wrong  not  to  prepare 
ourselves  for  a  duty  to  which  we  are  plainly  informed  that 
we  shall  (or  may)  be  called. 

With  regard  to  instances  of  miracles,  exemplifying  the 
general  remarks  in  the  last  chapter,  many  might  be  enume 
rated,  far  beyond  our  limits :  it  would  carry  us  into  great 
length  of  discussion  to  consider  all  the  circumstances  even  of 
those  few  miracles  mentioned  by  Mr.  Hume6.  We  will  only 
select  such  examples  as  seem  requisite  to  elucidate  the  general  207 
observations  made  in  the  last  section  of  the  preceding  chapter. 

In    considering    doubtful    miracles,    we    must    keep    two 
things  in  our  mind ;  their  nature  and  their  purpose.     Under 


1  Deut.  xiii.  1—3. 

2  Matt.  xxiv.  24.  3  Gal.  1.  8. 

4  2  Thess.  ii.  8, 9, 1 1,  <nj/ner«i/  is  distin 
guished  from  TC'/OGCS. — See  Parkhurst's 
Lex.  Tc'pas,  or  Mintert's,  as  before. 


5  See  Bishop  Ilallifax  on  Prophecy, 
p.  2. 

0  Here  Mr.  Hume's  account  of  Vespa 
sian's  miracles,  and  those  at  the  tomb  of 
the  Abbd  Paris,  should  be  read. 


I.  XVl'.  10.]     MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT  14'7 

I.  their  nature,  I  comprehend  the  occasion  on  which  they  were 
wrought,  as  well  as  the  manner'1  and  matter  of  them ;  con 
fining  the  notion  of  purpose  to  the  religious  and  moral  systems 
which  they  were  intended  to  support. 

To  form  a"  complete  si/stem  of  criteria  of  true  and  false 
miracles  is  impracticable.  The  regular  way  of  forming  one 
would  be,  to  read  with  very  nice  attention8  all  the  accounts 
of  miracles  which  are  to  be  found,  and  mark  with  the  utmost 
minuteness  all  their  distinguishing  properties;  then  class 
them,  &c.  If  it  should  be  allowed  that  there  is  a  degree 
of  human  sagacity  capable  of  accomplishing  this,  yet,  when 
these  criteria  were  known,  the  next  forgers  of  miracles  would 
be  aware  of  them,  and  would  furnish  their  signs  and  wonders 
with  as  many  as  possible  of  the  newly-discovered  marks  of 
credibility. 

Nevertheless,  from  the  occasion,  the  manner,  and  the 
matter  of  doubtful  and  suspicious  miracles,  we  may,  in  many 
cases,  form  a  judgment;  and  perhaps  we  need  seldom  be  in 
any  great  perplexity  about  the  conduct  which  we  shall 
pursue. 

If  the  occasion  of  any  doubtful  miracle  is  trifling*  and 
2C8  frivolous,  we  shall  hesitate  much  to  accept  it.  A  miracle  is 
no  trifle.  Many  trifling  occasions  are  so  plainly  such,  as 
to  want  no  pointing  out :  others  may  have  some  appearance  of 
bustle  and  importance,  when  they  really  are  of  very  little 
moment.  It  may  justly  be  thought  a  trifling  occasion  when 
men  contend  about  tilings  they  do  not  understand,  however 
vehement  they  may  be.  Words  without  ideas  seem  as  if  they 
could  never  furnish  a  motive  to  infinite  wisdom  for  unsettling 
the.  laws  of  nature.  And  as  regularity  in  the  operations  of 
nature  seems  intended  to  guide  us  in  our  ordinary  under 
takings,  it  is  improbable  that  the  laws  of  nature  should  ever 
be  violated  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  or  when  such 
violations  are  needless.  The  Jesuits  and  Jansenists  differed 
about  questions  above  the  decision  of  the  human  understand 
ing10,  and  the  miracles  said  to  be  performed  at  the  tomb  of 


7  See  xvi.  1,  and  xv.  22. 
c  Bacon,  as  quoted  by  Hume  at  the 
end  of  his  Essay,  seems  to  say  something 


performed  on  occasions  which  may  be 
called  trifling,  taken  separately ;  but  they 
should  all  be  conceived  as  jointly  per- 


lilce  this :   "  Facienda  est  congeries  om-   ',   formed  on  one  tinfflt  occasion,  to  prove 

monstrorum,1'  &c.  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah. 

Several  of  the  Scripture  miracles  are   '      lu  Sec  book  iv.  of  this;  art.  x.  sect.  I/. 

10 2 


148        MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   [I.  Xvi.  10. 

the  }  Abbe   Paris  were  performed  in  support  of  the  Jansenist    I. 
side  of  those  questions. 

We  cannot  conceive  Vespasian's  being  emperor  any  very 
important  matter  in  the  sight  of  Heaven. 

When  miracles  are  said  to  be  performed  in  support  of  a 
religion  that  is  established,  they  are  the  less  credible  on  that 
account.  The  Mahometan  religion  does  not  appear  to  have 
made  any  public  pretensions  to  miracles  before  it  was  estab 
lished,  except  perhaps  communication  of  the  prophet  .with 
the  Deity,  which  is  a  miracle  that  wants  other  miracles  to 
prove  it ;  whereas  the  Christian  religion  unquestionably  did  : 
and  I  think  Bishop  Butler  has  shewn2,  that,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  expressions,  this  was  peculiar  to  Christianity, 
(including  the  Mosaic  religion,  by  which  it  was  introduced.)  209 
The  first  publishers  of  the  Christian  religion  performed  mi 
racles  before  it  acquired  any  strength  or  influence,  or  had  any 
witnesses  who  could  be  partial  ;  when  men  could  not  concert 
them,  and  were  least  likely  to  accept  them. 

When  miracles  are  said  to  be  performed  in  support  of 
any  powerful  party,  or  set  of  men,  they  are  evidently  the  less 
credible  on  that  account ;  because  power  can  procure  false 
testimony,  and  a  party  or  set  of  men  can  furnish  numbers, 
who  can  play  into  each  others  hands.  The  Abbe  Paris  was 
favoured  by  a  powerful  party,  and  every  miracle  supposed 
to  be  performed  at  his  tomb  was  immediately  applied  as  a 
strong  argument  in  support  of  that  party.  This  principle 
discredits  the  miracle  said  to  have  been  performed  by  3  Ves 
pasian  :  he  could  want  no  proofs  that  he  chose  to  call  for. 
What  is  said  of  parties  is  particularly  applicable  to  rival  and 
contending  parties :  if  they  are  equal  in  power  they  strain 
every  nerve  for  victory.  And  indeed  this  principle  reaches 
all  miracles  which  appear  to  be  performed  with  worldly 
views. 

Sometimes  we  may  form  a  judgment  of  miracles  from  the 
manner  in  which  they  are  performed  or  related.  If  miracles 
are  a  long  time  in  performing,  it  affords  room  to  suspect  that 
they  are  brought  about  by  human  means.  Several  of  the 


1  Should  it  be  Abbe  Paris,  or  Abbe'  de 
Paris?  Hume,  a  very  good  Frenchman, 
quotes  in  French,  Abbe  Paris,  p.  139.  Hvo ; 
but  Leland  uses  Abbe  de  Paris,  seem 
ingly  from  the  French  also,  from  the  very 
same  title,  Kecueil  ties  Miracles,  &c. 


2  See  Bp.  Butler's  Analogy,  Part  ii. 
chap.  7- 

:i  Suetonius,  Vesp.  Chap.  vn. — Taci 
tus,  Hist.  iv.  81. — Bullet,  by  Salisbury, 
p.  2")l. — Lardner's  Test. — Hume  on  Mi 
racles. 


I.  Xvi.  10.]  MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.         149 

I.  cures  at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris  were  slow,  gradual,  and 
attended  with  excessive  pain4,  whereas  our  Saviour's  miracles 
might  be  called  instantaneous.  St.  Januarius's  blood  is  not 
liquefied  all  at  once5;  it  takes  up  between  eight,  and  twenty 
minutes. 

210  Though  some  witnesses  of  miracles  are  necessary  to  their 
credibility,  yet  crowds  are  suspicious.  There  were  generally 
crowds  present  at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris.  And  St. 
Januarius's  blood  is  always  liquefied  in  the  midst  of  a  large 
multitude.  When  our  Lord  cured  the  deaf  man  (Mark  vii. 
33)  it  is  particularly  said,  he  took  him  "  aside  from  the  multi 
tude  ;"  and  yet  there  were  some  witnesses,  for  we  find  "  he 
charged  them  "  not  to  publish  his  fame.  How  different  from 
the  conduct  of  Lucian's  Alexander ! 

Some  judgment  may  be  formed  from  scenery,  and  those 
that  have  possession  of  it :  sometimes  if  that  be  changed  the 
miraculous  power  ceases.  The  Cock-lane  ghost  could  only 
knock  and  scratch  in  one  place.  When  the  gates  of  the 
church-yard  were  shut  up  at  Paris,  the  Abbe  occasioned  no 
more  miracles.  Some  indeed  have  excepted  convulsions ;  but, 
as  thirty  Jansenist  divines6  have  rejected  them,  we  may  reject 
them  safely. 

We  may  here  mark  the  difference  between  a  single  mi 
racle,  and  a  set  or  system,  all  adapted  in  an  orderly  manner  to 
one  important  end.  No  single  miracle  seems  wholly  credible 
of  itself.  We  cannot  conceive  any  reason  for  exerting  mira 
culous  power,  which  would  not  occasion  a  number  of  miracles. 
This  again  affects  Vespasian's  cure;  and  so  it  must,  though 
he  were  said  to  have  performed  another.  The  Christian 
miracles  were  very  numerous.  From  this  consideration  it  fol 
lows,  that,  if  we  meet  with  a  relation  of  a  miracle,  with  cir 
cumstances  which  we  cannot  account  for,  we  are  not  to  be 
alarmed,  nor  to  think  that  a  proof  of  its  credibility. 

Our  judgment  may  moreover  be  assisted  by  the  manner 
in  which  miracles  are  related.     Accounts  nicely  studied  and 
211   arranged  are  suspicious,  because  they  shew  a  consciousness  of 
some  weakness,  which  requires  circumspection;  some  guarding 
against  discoveries:  and  a  pompous  style  shews  that  the  re- 
lator  distrusts  his  matter.      The  relations  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  are  remarkably  artless  and  unguarded — the  consequence 
of  which  is  some  cavilling  from  enemies ;    but  I  should  hope 
4  Lcland  i.  p.  327,  5th  edit.      5  See  any  travels  to  Naples.      6  Leland  i.  p.  328. 


150  MIIIACLES    OK    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.      [I.  Xvi.  10. 

great  credit  from  the  candid  and  judicious.  Though  we  could  I. 
not  solve  any  certain  difficulty  in  a  relation  of  a  Gospel  miracle, 
yet,  if  we  sec  it  is  clearly  one  which  an  artful  contriver  of  a 
story  would  not  have  left,  that  is  enough  to  shew  that  the 
relation  is  not  artfully  contrived  ;  which  is  the  main  thing  we 
want  to  be  convinced  of.  Thus  errors  in  manuscripts  are 
sometimes  recommendations  (Chap.  viii.  sect.  (5.).  The  reason 
is  the  same ;  voluntary  falsifications  are  more  to  be  feared 
than  involuntary  :  and  if  we  can  be  secure  against  the  former, 
we  can  put  up  with  the  latter,  especially  when  the  latter  arc 
the  foundation  of  our  security. 

Under  this  head  we  may  rank  the  character  of  the  persons 
who  give  the  relation ;  if  they  have  been  found  encouragers  of 
pious  frauds,  their  accounts  will  deserve  but  little  attention. 
If  ,they  are  very  remote  their  credit  is  the  worse;  as  analogy 
of  all  kinds  is  weakened  by  distance1,  in  any  sense  of  the  word. 

But  the  principal  thing  to  consider,  with  regard  to  relators 
(whose  veracity  we  have  no  particular  reason  to  suspect),  is, 
whether  they  are  what  one  may  call  versed  in  miracles,  whether 
they  know  all  the  criteria  fixed  upon  before  their  own  times. 
The  relators  of  the  first  Christian  miracles  seem  not  to  have 
had  any  notion  of  such  a  thing;  any  more  than  an  ingenuous 
man  has  of  the  external  marks  of  internal  emotions,  or  one 
naturally  eloquent,  of  the  rules  of  rhetoric: — whereas  those  212 
who  presided  at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris  understood  per 
fectly  all  the  criteria  which  had  ever  been  remarked,  and  could 
provide  accordingly. 

We  may,  lastly,  form  some  judgment  of  the  credibility  of 
particular  miracles,  from  what  may  be  called  the  matter  of 
them.  If  the  changes  they  make  are  in  laws  of  nature  which 
are  little  known,  they  are  suspicious ;  and  so,  if  they  are  like 
former  false  miracles.  If  they  have  a  sameness  amongst  them 
selves,  being  all  cures,  for  instance,  of  one  sort  of  distemper, 
or  of  distempers  nearly  allied,  there  is  room  to  suspect  that 
they  are  all  only  one  trick,  with  some  variations.  Marks  of 
benevolence  must  be  some  recommendation  of  miracles,  because 
those  who  invent  wish  often  to  avenge  their  gods  or  themselves 
of  their  enemies:  Christ  "-went  about  doing;  p-ood"  miracu- 

o     o 

lously,  though  the  whole  system  of  Christian  miracles  seems  to 
have  been  intended  to  convince  men  that  he  was  sent  from 
God. 

1  Powell,  p.  <ju.  -  Acts  x. ;;;;. 


I.  xvi.  11.]      MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  151 

I.  We  may  add  here,  as  we  did  when  we  spoke3  of  the  criteria 

of  miracles  in  general,  that,  after  all,  there  may  be  some  cases 
of  which  we  must  form  a  judgment  in  a  manner  which  we  cannot 
describe,  by  means  of  our  feelings  and  common  sense;  though 
we  must  not  rest  in  these  when  it  can  be  avoided.  Of  such 
it  is  not  easy  to  give  instances. 

11.  Having  considered  the  marks  of  true  and  false 
miracles,  which  may  be  found  in  their  nature,  we  now  come  to 
take  some  notice  of  their  purpose.  The  purpose  of  true  miracles 
is  to  promote  true  religion  and  improved  morality. 

If  doubtful  miracles  tend  to  promote  rational  religion  and 
pure  morals,  that  will  add  greatly  to  their  credibility ;  but  if 

213  they  are  performed  in   order   to  support  idolatry,  very  gross 
superstition,  enthusiasm,  fanaticism,  or  bad  morals,  no  ex 
ternal  testimony  can  make  them  perfectly  credible4. 

It  may  probably  be  thought  that  this  remark  is  too  bold, 
and  unfriendly  to  Revelation;  and  therefore  that  the  Scriptures 
cannot  encourage  this  opinion :  it  is  then  our  business  to  shew 
that  they  do.  Indeed,  this  may  appear  in  some  degree  from 
the  texts  already5  quoted ;  but  it  will  more  fully  appear  from 
the  following  considerations. 

Our  Lord  distinguishes  between  the  spirit  of  Elias  and  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  exertion  of  the  same  miraculous0 
power.  Elias  had  called  forjire  from  heaven  to  consume  those 
who  attacked  him :  the  disciples  of  Christ  proposed  to  him  to 
do  the  same  thing,  to  punish  the  Samaritans  for  their  inhos 
pitable  treatment : — "  but  he  turned,  and  rebuked  them,  and 
said,  Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of:"  that  is, 
66  Such  a  miracle  would  be  as  much  a  miracle  as  any  other, 
but  it  would  not  arise  from,  and  therefore  it  would  not  promote, 
Christian  virtue:  it  would  be  an  instance  of  power,  but  it 
would  prove  nothing  in  my  favour  by  its  tendency" 

When  the  Jews7  want  to  apply  the  above-mentioned  text 
(Deut.  xiii.  1—3)  to  Christ,  and  say  that  his  power  is  not  of  an 
heavenly  sort,  though  they  require  a  sign  he  grants  them  none  ; 
he  shews  them  no  further  instance  of  power,  but  only  points 

214  out   to  them   the   general   good  tendency  of  his   miracles,  or 

3  xvi.  1,  and  xv.  22.  '  racles  said  to  have  been  performed  at  his 

4  Leland  rightly  gives  (vol.  i.  p.  356,)      tomb. 

the  additional  accounts   which  he   had  5  In  the  preceding  section.   Deut.  xiii. 

received  of  the  fanatical  austerities  of  the   '    1 3,  and  others. 

AM*  Paris;  judging  that  gross  errors  in  (i  Luke  ix.  f»5.    2  Kings  i.  10,  12. 

religion  could  not  but  discredit  the  mi-  7  Luke  xi.l ,">,!(>.  SccMacknight,p.3G{>. 


152 


MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   [I.  Xvi.  12. 


rather  refers  them  to  it  (as  a  thing  well  known)  tacitly,  which    I. 
must  prove  that  his  power  could  not  be  diabolical;  and,  as  he 
taught  no  false  religion,    that  text  (Deut.  xiii.  1—3)  could  not 
be  applicable  to  him. 

Christ,  as  was  lately1  observed,  sometimes  points  out  the 
moral  tendency  of  his  own  miracles  by  moralizing  upon  them : 
during  the  performance  also  of  his  miracles  he  had  often  looks 
and  gestures  of  a  moral  nature,  and  2 shewed  by  prayer,  by 
sighs,  and  tears,  how  much  he  had  the  true  happiness  of  man 
kind  at  heart,  which  he  knew  well  must  depend  upon  religion 
and  virtue. 

Though  doing  many  miracles  was  a  characteristic  of  the 
Messiah,  yet  he  is  not  described  by  mere  power;  the  applica 
tion  of  his  power  is  always  particularly  insisted  on.  The 
spectators  of  his  miracle  exclaim,  "  He  hath  done  all  things3 
well."  "  God  anointed  (says  St.  Peter)  Jesus  of  Nazareth4 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  who  went  about  doing 
good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil ;  for 
God  was  with  him."  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me 
(reads  our  Saviour5,  out  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  concerning 
the  Messiah),  because  he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  the  poor;  he  hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken 
hearted,  to  preach  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering 
of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised, 
to  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.11  Men  were  to 
judge,  then,  whether  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  not  only  by  his 
power  in  performing  miracles,  but  by  their  tendency:  and  we 
may  safely  adopt  the  words  of  a  learned  prelate,  u  Neither 
doctrines  alone,  nor  miracles  alone,  are  a  sufficient  testimony6  215 
that  the  revelation  containing  them  is  divine ;"  though  their 
united  testimony  is  sufficiently  convincing. 

12.  We  may  affirm,  on  this  ground,  that  the  evidence  of 
the  Gospel  miracles  is  sufficient  to  answer  all  the  purposes 
which  it  can  be  supposed  they  were  intended  to  answer.  As 
was  observed  before  of  the  evidence  for  Christianity  in  general, 
it  is  but  probable  evidence: — 1.  Our  senses  may  possibly 
deceive  us  ;  2.  Testimony  can  only  be  probable  ;  3.  Supposing 
a  fact  ascertained,  we  may  not  know  certainly  whether  it  is 


1  Sect.  7. 

2  See  Mark  vii.  34.  John  xi.  33,  35,  38. 

3  Mark  vii.  3J.  4  Acts  x.  38. 
*  I,«ke  iv,  18,     Isai.  ^xi.  1, 


c  Bp.  Halifax,  p.  2.  He  goes  on  after 
these  words  to  say  the  same  thing  more 
fully. 


I.  Xvi.  13.]   MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


153 


I.  natural  or  supernatural;  4.  Supposing  it  supernatural,  yet 
scepticism  may  still  question  whether  it  expresses  the  intention 
of  God.  But,  though  our  evidence  is  only  probable  evidence, 
yet  it  is  sufficiently  strong.  Our  expectations  of  life  and 
death,  of  day  and  night,  summer  and  winter,  are  founded  only 
on  probability ;  yet  we  act  upon  them  as  on  knowledge  or 
certainty:  and  if  the  evidence  of  miracles  does  but  influence 
our  lives  and  actions,  it  will  do  all  that  it  needs  to  do.  No 
higher  degree  of  evidence,  were  it  within  the  nature  of  the 
thing,  could  leave  us  in  a  state  of  probation.  Bishop  Butler, 
in  his  7 Analogy,  speaks  more  particularly  on  this  utility  of 
probable  evidence,  and  with  his  usual  good  sense :  he  also 
says8,  "  Nor  does  there  appear  any  absurdity  in  supposing 
that  the  speculative  difficulties  in  which  the  evidence  of  Reli 
gion  is  involved,  may  make  even  the  principal  part  of  some 
persons'  trial;"  which  agrees  with  Deut.  xiii.  3,  quoted  before: 
216  "For  the  Lord  your  God  proveth  you,  to  know  whether  ye 
love  the  Lord  your  God,  with  all  your  heart  and  with  all 
your  soul." 

13.  It  seems  to  follow,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the 
evidence  of  miracles,  even  though  supposed  to  be  performed 
in  or  near  our  own  times,  gradually  grows  weaker  and  weaker, 
and  at  last  must  be  too  weak  to  convince  any  reasonable  person : 
for  whatever  marks  can  be  put  upon  true  miracles,  may  be 
forged  in  such  a  degree  as  to  occasion  great  doubt :  and  the 
less  occasion  there  seems  for  them,  the  less  effect  will  any 
given  strength  of  evidence  have.  As  there  seems  great  reason 
to  conclude  that  the  Christian  dispensation  is  not  to  be 
succeeded  by  any  other ;  for  it  is  universal^  and  admits  the 
greatest  improvements  in  all  mankind  that  we  have  any  con 
ception  of;  it  appears  probable  that  the  miracles  intended 
to  establish  the  Christian  religion  will  be  the  last  credible 
miracles  performed  in  the  world.  Grotius^  on  Mark  xvi.  17, 
says,  that  if  a  man  was  to  go  teach  the  Gospel  to  barbarous 
nations,  he  would  still  have  the  supernatural  powers  mentioned 
in  that  verse  ;  but  this  seems  rash:  the  first  propagation 
of  the  Gospel  was  very  different  from  the  spreading  of  it  at 
present9.  Besides,  we  cannot  on  any  occasion  point  out  the 


*  Butler's  Anal.  Part  ii.  chap.  8.  4thly. 
8  Part  ii.  chap.  fi.  3dly. 
;|  (rrotius  rather  seems  to  speak  with 
a  reference  to  the  power  of  casting  out 


demons,  than  to  that  of  speaking  with 
new  tonyites  ;  though  I  do  not  see  why 
he  might  not  mean  to  include  these 
also. 


154 


MIRACLES    OF    THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.      f  I.  Xvi.  14. 


expedients  of  divine  government  beforehand,  though  we  may   I. 
admire  them  when  they  are  past. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  us,  just  at  present,  to  enter  into 
disputes  about  the  duration  of  miraculous  powers  in  the 
Christian  church.  All  that  we  have  said  only  implies,  that 
Christian  miracles  were  intended  to  establish  Christianity, 
whether  they  continued  a  longer  or  a  shorter  time.  Bishop 
Warburton  has  published  a  very  ingenious  defence  of  the  217 
miraculous  fiery  eruption,  when  Julian  attempted  (or  was 
supposed  to  attempt)  to  rebuild  the  temple  of  Jerusalem. 
I  once1  explained  my  reasons  why  I  was  not  satisfied  with  it ; 
and  I  since  find  that  Lardner',  who  saw  much  farther  into 
the  subject  than  I  did,  came  to  the  same  conclusion.  I  men 
tion  this  miracle  as  one  about  which  learned  men  have 
held  different  opinions.  Another  instance  is,  the  miracle  of 
the  thundering3  legion.  Another,  the  conversion  of  Con- 
stantine  the  Great4. 

14.  I  know  not  that  I  can  now  make  any  more  remarks 
on  the  subject  of  miracles,  without  being  too  particular  for 
the  nature  of  our  undertaking.  I  could  only  wish  to  look 
once  more  through  Mr.  Hume's  Essay,  and  apply  what  has 
been  said,  in  the  order  of  his  observations ;  inserting  any 
thing  that  may  appear  to  have  been  improperly  omitted. 

Mr.  Hume  opens  his  Essay  on  Miracles  with  an  argu 
ment  of  Archbishop  Tillotson,  which  seems  neither5  conclu 
sive  nor  applicable.  He  estimates  the  comparative  forces 
of  analogy  and  testimony  falsely,  in  several  respects  ;  ascrib 
ing  too  much  force  to  analogy,  and  too  little  to  testimony. 
He  defends  the  Indian  prince,  and  says  he  reasoned  justly; 
though  he  says,  that  Indians  "  cannot  reasonably  be  positive" 
about  what  happens  in  Muscovy.  He  builds  upon  a  dis-  218 
tinction  between  extraordinary  and  miraculous,  which  does 
not  affect  our  reasoning.  He  speaks  of  a  law  of  nature 


1  In  some  lectures  on  ecclesiastical  his 
tory,  read  in  Sidney  College  Chapel,  in 
the  years  1/03  and  1J69. 

"  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  vui.  p.  393; 
and  vol.  x.  p.  83 :  read  the  passage  in 
vol.  x.  first. 

'•'  Bullet  transl.  by  Salisbury,  p.  47, 
and  note. 

1  Sec  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  iv.  pp. 
151,  152. 


5  The  twenty -eighth  Article  of  the 
Church  of  England  takes  better  ground. 
Transubstantiation,  it  says,  cannot  be 
proved  by  Holy  Writ,  nay,  is  repugnant 
to  it,  &c — If  all  else  was  right,  our  senses 
would  not  give  us  just  reason  for  reject 
ing  the  doctrine.  And  the  evidence  of 
miracles  does  not  overthrow  that  of  our 
senses. 


I.XV'i.  11.]   MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.        155 

I,  as  of  something  known  to  be  fixed.  lie  says,  that  there 
must  be  "an  uniform  experience  against  a  miracle,"  in  order 
to  make  it  one ;  whereas  experience  tells  us,  that  extraor 
dinary  measures  are  always  used  on  extraordinary  occasions. 
And  the  experience  of  which  he  speaks  is  only  in  one  track) 
and  the  expectation  founded  on  it  liable  to  be  weakened  or 
destroyed  by  change  of  circumstances :  God's  giving  the 
teachers  of  a  new  religion  power  to  alter  the  course  of 
nature,  would  not  lessen  our  ordinary  confidence  in  it.  So 
that  if  a  man  said,  "  that  he  saw  a  dead  man  restored  to  life" 
and  that  was  the  whole  of  the  matter,  I  should  disbelieve  it. 
My  habitual  expectations  should  guide  me  in  ordinary  cases ; 
but  if  the  resurrection  of  a  dead  person  seemed  a  rational 
proof  of  any  thing  extraordinary  and  important,  and  part 
of  a  system  of  miracles,  the  case  would  be  changed  ;  I  should 
be  quite  in  a  new  situation,  and  it  would  be  childish  and 
absurd  for  me  to  adhere  to  that  experience  which  had  before 
been  my  best  guide.  If,  indeed,  this  rising  of  a  dead  man 
was  a  single  event,  I  should  give  it  but  little  credit. 

So  much  of  what  might  be.  With  regard  to  what  has 
been,  it  seems  to  me,  that  a  testimony  which  has  never  been 
known  to  deceive  ought  to  convince,  especially  when  joined 
with  an  important  occasion.  And  such  testimony  we  have 
in  favour  of  Christian  miracles.  Men  certainly  love  the 
marvellous,  but  our  witnesses  were  very  sober-minded.  Ig 
norant  people  may  be  easily  imposed  upon  ;  but  the  Jews 
were  the  least  ignorant,  as  to  religion,  of  any  people  in  the 
world.  Miracles  for  one  religion  are  miracles  against  an 
other,  it  seems ;  but  I  have  heard  two  witnesses  swear  point- 
219  blank  against  each  other,  and  yet  nobody  thought  both  of 
them  perjured.  Vespasiarfs  miracles  seem  incredible,  be 
cause  he  had  dependents  and  flatterers,  and  was  inclined 
to  superstition ;  besides,  he  did  so  little,  and  in  cases  so 
unimportant!  The  effects  of  credulity  and  pious  fraud, 
separate  and  conjoined,  are  certainly  lamentable:  the  door 
keeper  of  Saragossa  cathedral,  the  niece  of  Pascal,  and  the 
tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris,  are  melancholy  instances.  But  the 
occasions  were  trifling,  the  parties  powerful,  interested, 
enthusiastic,  and  well  skilled  in  the  criteria  of  miracles,  and 
marks  of  credibility.  This  last  shews  how  "  the  Jansenist 
miracles"  might  "  much  surpass"  those  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
evidence  and  authority. 


156  PROPHECIES.  [I,  xvii.  Int. 

A  great  deal  might  be  said  about  circumstances  of  I. 
these  affairs,  as  appears  from  LelancTs  View,  where  several 
curious  things  appear:  but  our  principles  will  suffice;  de 
tails  would  be  tedious,  and  imperfect.  We  have  no  reason, 
as  Christians,  to  expect  such  miracles ;  we  have  great  reason 
to  suspect  the  testimony  by  which  they  were  supported. 

I  profess  that  my  expectation  is,  that  if  ever  God  does 
reveal  his  will  to  mankind,  he  will  alter  the  course  of  nature 
by  some  of  his  agents.  I  have  no  idea  what  other  creden 
tials  they  can  have. 

And,  with  regard  to  the  Christian  religion,  I  own  that 
the  notion  of  its  being  propagated  without  miracles,  (sup 
posing  it  true),  is  more  strange,  more  contrary  to  all  judge 
ments  which  I  can  form  from  experience,  than  its  being 
propagated  by  their  assistance.  Although,  therefore,  I  have 
an  expectation  of  falsehood  and  deception  in  pretensions  to 
modern  miracles,  or  to  any  circumstanced  like  those  which 
are  said  to  have  been  performed  between  the  settlement  of 
Christianity  and  the  present  time,  yet  I  have,  from  the 
same  experience,  a  strong  expectation  of  real  miracles  on  220 
such  an  occasion  as  the  first  propagation  of  the  Gospel. 

It  is  mortifying  to  be  obliged  to  speak  of  the  miracles 
of  the  Gospel  collectively;  but  our  limits  require  it,  and 
make  it  necessary.  The  answers  to  Woolston  will  supply 
particulars  to  the  attentive  reader.  I  would  especially  re 
commend  Lardner^s  answers,  at  the  beginning  of  the  last 
volume  of  his  works. 


CHAPTER    XVII.  221 

OF    PROPHECIES. 

PROPHECIES  may  be  conceived  as  a  species  of  miracles: 
the  law  of  nature  which  they  violate  is  that  by  which  we 
are  made  ignorant  of  future  events ;  but  this  conception  may 
seem  rather  confused  ;  we  may  therefore  as  well  not  confine 
ourselves  to  it.  The  word  Prophecy  needs  no  definition:  we 
know  sufficiently,  without  explanation,  what  is  meant  by  it. 
There  may  be  some  utility  in  dividing  prophecies  into  dif 
ferent  sorts. 


I.  XVli.  1.]  PROPHECIES.  157 

I.  1.  We  may  mention  those  of  the  Old  Testament:  these 
seem  to  be  well  enumerated  by  Bishop  Newton,  in  his  Dis 
sertations  on  the  Prophecies  which  have  been  fulfilled  or 
are  fulfilling.  The  purpose  of  this  learned  prelate  was,  to 
compare  History  with  Prophecy.  He  tells  us,  towards  his 
conclusion,  (p.  439,  vol.  in.)  that  the  study  of  History  led 
him  to  the  study  of  Prophecy. 

He  mentions  only  one  prophecy  before  that  of  Noah, 
namely,  Gen.  iii.  15,  which  verse  he  thinks  unworthy  of 
Moses  or  any  sensible  writer  in  any  other  sense  besides  a 
prophetical1  one.  He  then  gives  a  dissertation  on  Noah's2 
prophecy,  and  its  completion ;  another  on  the  prophecies 
concerning  Ishmael3 ;  and  others  in  like  manner  upon  the 
prophecies  concerning  Jacob  and  Esau ;  on  Jacob's  pro 
phecies  concerning  his  sons,  particularly  Judah;  on  Balaam's 
prophecies,  and  on  those  of  Moses.  Then  he  takes  the  sub- 
J22  jects  in  the  order  of  the  several  nations  whose  fortunes 
were  foretold  :  he  collects  the  various  prophecies  concerning 
the  Jews;  the  Ninevites ;  the  inhabitants  of  Babylon,  with 
their  city ;  concerning  Tyre,  and  Egypt  ;  after  which,  he 
applies  himself  to  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  separately  from 
the  rest.  If  we  take  the  prophetic  books  of  the  Old  Test 
ament,  we  must  mention  four  books  of  the  major  prophets, 
and  twelve  of  the  minor  ,•  all  of  whom  lived  between  about 
800  years  before  Christ  and  430.  Malachi  was  the  last. 
Not  that  it  is  quite  certain  when  each  prophet  lived,  though 
the  time  may  be  tolerably  well  ascertained  from  internal 
marks.  Prophecy  is  intermixed  with  history  in  most  if  not 
all  the  books  in  which  it  is  found,  except  perhaps  the 
Book  of  Psalms. 

This  may  be  a  proper  place  for  remarking,  that  the 
subjects  of  theology  are  so  copious,  that  we  are  obliged, 
in  a  system  which  contains  all  subjects,  to  leave  some  to 
be  treated  in  separate  works.  This  is  the  case  with  pro 
phecy  :  we  can  only  give  the  elements  of  it,  leaving  the 
completion  of  particular  prophecies  to  other  works.  Indeed, 
our  readings  in  Bishop  Pearson  on  the  Creed  will  contri 
bute  greatly  to  supply  the  defect  we  speak  of. 

The   same   kind  of  omissions    are   made  in  other  exten 
sive  si/sfems  ,• — as  in  those   of  natural  philosophy,  law,  his 
tory,  &c.      No   one  who  teaches  all  the  branches  of  natural 
1  Vol.  T.  p.  10.     -  Gen.  ix.  25,  26,  2/.      3  Gen.  xvi.  C— 12;  xvii.  20;  xxi.  13,  18. 


158 


PROPHECIES. 


[I.  xvii.  2-4. 


philosophy    gives    all    the   particulars    contained    in  Smithes    I. 
Optic*'* 

2.  We  must  next  mention   the  prophecies   of  the  New 
Testament.      Bishop    Newton    also    enumerates    these,     and 
points   out    their    completion,     as   far    as    they    are    already 
completed  ;    for,  though  some  of  them  are  completed,  others 
remain   uncompleted.      Bishop  Newton   has  four  dissertations 
on  our   Saviour1!    prophecies   relating   to   the   destruction   of 
Jerusalem;  one  upon  St.  Paul's  prophecy  of  the  man1  of  sin;  223 
and   one  upon   his  prophecy  of  the  apostasy"  of  the   latter 
times ;    and   nearly   an    whole  octavo   volume    on    St.  John's 
prophecies  in  the  book  of  Revelation. 

3.  There   seems  to  have  been   a   sort   of  prophecy   dis 
tinguishable  from   both   the   foregoing ;    chiefly  by  its   being 
occasional.     In  the  New  Testament  it  is  called  the  gift*  of 
prophecy,  but  there  seems  to  have  been  something  analogous 
to  it  under  the  Old,  as  may  appear  from  Deut.  xiii.  1,  already 
quoted,   and    from    the    use   of  the    Urim   and    Thummim*. 
Indeed,  under  the  Jewish  polity,  prediction  of  events  which 
soon  came  to  pass  made  part  of  the  Theocracy ',  at  least  till  the 
time  of  Solomon  :  under  Christianity,  at  its  first  publication, 
this  temporary  prophecy  seems  to  have  been  intended  for  com 
fort  to  the  persecuted,  and  for  warning  as  to  the  measures 
which  it  was  prudent  to  adopt5. 

Yet  sometimes  to  prophesy  means  only  to  expound  pro 
phecies,  or  the  plans  of  Revelation  ;  and  prophets  are  accord 
ingly  expounders  of  the  revealed  will  of  God :  nay,  sometimes 
they  seem  to  be  only  the  instruments  of  exhortation  and 
edification  in  general — of  that  kind  of  edification  which  fore 
telling  events  was  one  means  of  producing.  The  gift  of 
prophecy  must  operate  as  a  strong  proof  of  the  truth  of  Chris 
tianity. 

4.  The   difficulties  attending  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament   have6  been  acknowledged   to  be   very  great ;  but 
yet  they  do  not  necessarily  take  away  the  argument  on  which 
our  faith  is  founded.     The  chief  thing  that  we  want  to  prove  224- 
is  the  Divine  Interposition ;  for  whatever  the  Supreme  Being 


1  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4. 

2  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  2,  3. 

3  1  Cor.  xiii.  2. 

4  See   Cruden's    Concordance,   under 
Thummim. 


5  See  Warb.  on  Grace,  p.  27;  and  Up. 
Horsley's  Sermon,  on  1  Cor.  ii.  2,  Ap 
pendix. 

0  See  the  opening  of  Dr.  Powell's  JHh 
Discourse. 


I.  xvii.  4.]  PROPHECIES.  159 

I.  proves,  by  interposing  in  it,  is  true ;  and,  whenever  there  is 
such  a  coincidence  between  any  previous  notice  and  a  subse 
quent  event,  as  is  utterly  unaccountable  except  on  supposition 
of  a  Divine  interference,  there  the  interference  of  the  Deity  is 
to  be  admitted  and  allowed.  Now  such  a  coincidence  there 
may  be,  either  when  an  expectation  has  been  excited  by  the 
previous  notice,  or  not.  If  any  expectation  has  been  excited, 
the  coincidence  of  the  event  with  that  expectation  is  a  proof  of 
the  Divine  interposition,  even  though  we  cannot  judge  of  the 
particular  manner  in  which  the  expectation  was  originally 
raised ;  for  what  but  the  hand  of  Heaven  could  fulfil  an 
expectation  of  many  particulars,  especially  when  they  are  of  a 
wonderful  nature,  or  of  a  supernatural  sort,  or  quite  out  of  the 
reach  of  ordinary  analogy?  To  feel  the  force  of  this  remark, 
we  should  dwell  on  the  subject;  we  should  calculate  the  pro 
bability  against  any  expectation  being  fulfilled  by  mere  chance. 
The  Magi  probably  thought  that  the  rising  of  a  new  star 
portended  the  birth  of  a  new  prince ;  and,  on  this  erroneous 
principle,  they  might  follow  the  supernatural  meteor  which 
led  them  to  Jerusalem,  and  afterwards  to  Bethlehem  :  what 
then  ?  though  their  expectation  was  founded  upon  astrology, 
yet  could  it  have  been  completed  by  chance?  or  even  without 
a  Divine  interposition,  somewhere  or  other  ?  Hence,  without 
clearly  knowing  the  grounds  of  an  expectation,  we  can  pro 
nounce  the  fulfilling  of  that  expectation  Divine.  On  this 
footing  it  is  that  we  say,  many  difficulties  relating  to  the  pro 
phecies  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be  neglected.  Difficulties 
are  raised  as  to  the  grounds  on  which  the  Jews  expected  the 
225  Messiah;  but  we  see  that,  if  they  did  expect  him,  and  their 
expectation  related  to  several  particulars,  and  those  of  an  extra 
ordinary  nature,  and  if  events  corresponded  to  those  expecta 
tions,  that  is  sufficient. 

But,  though  the  previous  notice  raises  no  expectation, 
(which  may  happen  through  inattention,  misapprehension,  pre 
judice,  &c.)  yet  the  Divine  interposition  may  still  appear. 
Events  may  bring  to  light  a  previous  notice  of  those  events ; 
as  in  common  life  we  may  find  that  we  had  been  warned  of  a 
danger  when  we  fall  into  it,  though  we  had  not  found  it  out 
before.  And  whenever  a  previous  notice  and  a  subsequent 
event  coincide — at  whatever  time  we  happen  to  discover  the 
coincidence,  there  is  an  interposition  of  Heaven. 

The  present  intention  of  these  remarks  is  only  to  prevent 


160  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  5,  6. 

our  being  discouraged  with  difficulties  relating  to  prophecies,    I. 
when  they  seem  insurmountable :   we  must  not  conclude  that 
all  difficulties  will  have  such  an  appearance,  when  we  come  to 
consider  them  attentively. 

5.  Nevertheless,  it  must  not  be  denied,  that  the  generality 
of  prophecies  are  involved  in  obscurity.      Our  next  business  is 
to   consider  the  nature  of  that   obscurity,   and   the   probable 
reasons  of  it.    Such  considerations  must  best  excite  us  to  study 
the  subject  of  prophecy  with  diligence,  and  enable  us  to  study 
it  with  success. 

The  clearest  possible  kind  of  prophecies  we  can  only 
imagine ;  we  have  no  instances  of  it.  If  an  event  was  foretold 
with  all  circumstances,  of  time,  place,  &c.  and  was  to  come  to 
pass,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  at  all ;  but  yet,  though  the 
completion  would  be  miraculous,  this  is  not  the  sort  we  meet 
with ; — why,  we  may  not  know  perfectly.  The  obscurity  of 
prophecies  can  afford  no  presumption  that  they  do  not  come 
from  the  Author  of  nature ;  because  in  his  government  many 
difficulties  occur.  To  have  prophecies  perfectly  plain,  seems  226 
like  having  jewels  ready  polished,  medicines  vegetating  already 
compounded;  which  would  afford  no  exercise  for  the  faculties, 
natural  or  moral — no  probation.  We  may  add,  that  if  pro 
phecies  were  perfectly  plain,  the  completion  of  them  might  be 
obstructed,  unless  man's  freedom  of  choice  were  taken  away  or 
abridged ;  or  it  might  be  hastened  by  man,  which  would  lessen 
the  belief  of  the  divine  interposition.  In  general,  whatever 
introduces  human  contrivance  into  any  events  must  diminish 
the  evidence  of  their  being  supernatural. 

6.  So  far  we  might  apologize  for  the  obscurity  of  pro 
phecies,    before  we  come  to  study  them :   when   we  come  to 
study  them,  we  find   some  reasons  for  their  obscurity  taken 
from  the  nature  of  language,  some  taken  from  the  circum 
stances  in  which   they  were  delivered. 

All  languages  abound  with  imperfections,  which  are  sup 
plied  by  habitual  feelings,  as  was  before  shewn1.  Whenever 
God  speaks  to  man,  he  will  suffer  his  agents  to  fall  into  all 
customary  modes  of  speech  ;  otherwise,  the  language  they 
spoke  would,  in  effect,  be  the  most  imperfect  of  any,  as  it 
would  be  the  least  intelligible.  Eastern  language,  when  the 
prophets  wrote,  was  very  figurative,  therefore  so  must  be 
theirs.  To  conceive  this  properly,  it  seems  necessary  to 

1  Chap.  x.  sect.  1. 


I.xvii.  6.] 


PROPHECIES. 


1G1 


I.  recur  to  the  origin-  of  figurative  speech.  When  words  are 
few  in  any  language,  there  is  a  necessity  of  using  one  word, 
not  only  to  express  the  thing  it  stands  for  immediately,  but  to 
transfer  it,  (nercxpepeLv,)  so  that  it  shall  stand  for  another 

227  thing  which  resembles  the  first ;   and   as  these  resemblances, 
couched  in   a   single   word,    are   pleasing,    they   are    carried 
farther,   and   continued  longer  than   necessity  requires.      The 
degree  in  which  they  are  used  may,  I  should  think,   depend 
upon  the  pleasure  they  excite,  that  is,  upon  the  3  warmth  of 
imagination.      This  relates  chiefly  to  speaking. 

Language,  in  writing,  may  be  either  by  an  alphabet, 
that  is,  a  set  of  marks  merely  arbitrary  ;  or  by  hieroglyphics, 
that  is,  symbolic  marks;  or  by  pictures.  I  mention  the  alphabet 
first,  because  that  is  most  familiar  to  us,  though  the  most 
difficult  in  itself;  but  the  order  in  which  the  marks  were 
invented1  must  have  been  the  reverse.  Men  would  first 
express  a  thing  in  writing  by  some  picture  of  it;  but  this 
could  only  express  visible  objects :  then  they  would  make  the 
same  picture  to  represent  objects  of  sense,  and  things  not 
objects  of  sense — things  visible,  and  things  invisible,  as  an 
horn  would  mean  5 strength:  and  lastly,  for  expedition  and 
convenience,  they  would  use  marks  purely  arbitrary ;  though 
how  a  letter,  which  expresses  no  idea,  should  come  to  be 
substituted  for  a  picture  or  symbol  which  expresses  a  whole 
idea,  is  somewhat  difficult  to  comprehend. 

When  the  mark  of  an  horn  is  made  to  signify  an  horn, 
it  is  a  picture;  when  to  signify  strength,  it  is  properly  an 

228  hieroglyphic,  or  symbolic   character;    and  it   has   been    said, 
we  may  conceive  these  to  degenerate,  by  quick  writing,  into 
6  letters.     As  each  hieroglyphic  contains  more  senses  than  one, 
we  may  conceive  several  to  be  put  together,  so  as  to  form  a 


2  See  Bp.  Kurd's  9th  Sermon  on  Pro 
phecy,  particularly  p.  286,  &c. 

:i  Bp.  Hurd  rather  opposes  this  no 
tion  ;  but  necessity  might  occasion  the 
first  use  of  metaphors,  and  pleasure  con 
tinue  it,  as  indeed  he  himself  owns. 

4  If  they  were  all  invented.  Mr.  Wake- 
field  has  written  a  dissertation  in  order 
to  prove  that  alphabetical  writing  was 
revealed  to  the  Hebrews,  and  borrowed 
from  them  by  other  nations.  See  Life  of 
Mr.  Gilbert  Wakefield  by  himself,  p. 
260.  In  things  so  obscure  as  the  subject 

VOL.  I. 


of  alphabetical  writing,  arguments  which 
we  cannot  take  off'  may  leave  the  mind 
undecided  ;  especially  till  an  opportunity 
occurs  of  giving  them  an  attentive  exami 
nation. 

5  Hurd. 

°'  A  picture  of  an  axe  might  at  first  be 
a  mark  meaning  an  axe  ;  then  it  might 
mean  any  thing  sharp,  or  cutting ;  a  sharp 
cutting  reproof  ;  any  thing  acid :  at  last 
the  picture  might  be  hastily  and  ill  made ; 
deviate  from  a  picture  into  a  character^ 
and  from  a  character  into  a  mere  letter. 

11 


162  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  6. 

kind  of  enigma,  which  would  amuse  by  exercising  ingenuity,  I. 
and  sometimes  answer  the  purpose  of  temporary  concealment. 
These  and  other  reasons  might  induce  the  Egyptians  to  con 
tinue  the  use  of  hieroglyphics  after  they  had  an  alphabet;  and 
other  nations  to  copy  from  them,  which  the  Jews  and  others  in 
the  East  are  said  certainly  to  have  done ;  and  some  westerns, 
or  at  least  Grecians,  are  said  to  have  done  the  same. 

Though  symbols  or  hieroglyphics  had  some  resemblance 
to  an  original,  which  was  an  object  of  the  senses,  yet  they,  as 
well  as  letters,  were  in  a  considerable  degree  arbitrary ;  and 
therefore  they  might  be  learnt  as  a  language.  Dr.  Peter 
Lancaster  *  has  prefixed  to  his  abridgment  of  Daubuz  on  the 
Revelation,  an  account  of  all  the  symbols  used  in  that  sacred 
book,  with  the  interpretations  of  the  ancients ;  the  terms 
ranged  in  alphabetical  order,  and  making  a  symbolical  dic 
tionary,  as  far  as  such  a  dictionary  is  wanted  for  the  book  of 
Revelation. 

These  symbols  seem  to  have  been  the  ground  of  the  rules 
of  interpreting  dreams :  the  ground  of  the  science  of  Oneiro- 
critics2.  A  leopard  was  a  symbol  of  a  crafty  man;  therefore 
to  dream  of  a  leopard  (connected  probably  with  other  circum 
stances)  was  to  dream  of  a  crafty  man,  or  was  to  be  warned  229 
concerning  some  artful  person :  and  so  in  numberless  other 
cases.  Hence,  if  the  language  of  dreams  was  lost,  we  could 
find  it  out  if  we  had  the  language  of  symbols ;  or  if  the 
language  of  symbols  was  lost,  we  could  find  it  out  if  we  had 
the  language  of  dreams;  or  if  both  were  partly  lost,  the 
remains  of  one  would  help  out  the  remains  of  the  other. 
This  is  the  reason  why  men,  no  way  superstitious  about  dreams, 
set  such  a  value  on  Oneirocritics :  they  help  to  teach  the  sym 
bolic  language,  and  that  is  (often)  the  language  of  prophecy. 

Nay,  there  is  another  reason  why  Oneirocritics  should  be 
valued,  though  it  may  seem  somewhat  harsh,  or  weak,  to  the 
unthinking  prejudice  of  those  who  abhor  3 superstition.  God 
revealed  many  things  in  dreams;  Oneirocritics  contain  the 
established  language  of  dreams  :  the  same  reasons  which  prove 
that  God  would  use  any  other  established  language,  though 
very  imperfect,  prove  that  he  would  use  this.  By  Oneiro- 


1  Lancaster's  Symbolic  Dictionary. 

a  See  Artemidorus ;  and  Bp.  Hurd  on 
Prophecy,  Disc.  9th,  p.  298. 

3  May  not  one  conceive  that,  when  a 
man  is  made  to  dream,  he  must  be  made 


to  dream  of  some  visible  objects?  On 
this  supposition,  the  way  to  reveal  (by 
dream)  any  ideas,  would  be  to  make  a 
person  dream  of  those  visible  objects 
which  represent  those  ideas. 


I.  xvii.  ?•]  PROPHECIES.  163 

I.  critics  therefore  those  revelations  are  to  be  interpreted.  To 
look  at  that  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  10,  with  the  idea  that  a  sun  is  the 
symbol  of  a  king,  or  prince,  or  head4,  a  moon  of  a  queen,  &c. 
according  as  the  scene  is  laid,  would  do  no  harm.  We  see 
the  father  and  mother  understood  the  dream  immediately. 

What  has  been  said  of  Oneirocritics,  as  teaching  symbolical 
language,  may  be  extended  to  Divination.  An  5 horse  was  a 
symbol  of  prosperity ;  finding  an  head  of  an  horse  denoted 
230  prosperity,  in  laying  the  foundations  of  Carthage :  had  we  not 
known  that  an  horse  was  a  symbol  of  prosperity,  this  act  of 
divination  might  have  informed  us. 

If  you  ask  why  this  symbolical  language  should  be  the 
language  of  prophecy,  it  would  be  enough  to  answer,  it  was 
the  established  language ;  but  we  might  add,  that  though 
arbitrary  in  a  degree,  it  is  less  arbitrary  than  alphabetical 
language,  and  therefore  better  suited  to  instruct  all  nations, 
in  all  times.  Though  it  might  be  more  obscure  to  any  parti 
cular  nation  than  its  own  vernacular  tongue,  yet  to  all  nations, 
taken  collectively,  it  would  be  least  obscure. 

Moreover,  the  obscurity  which  it  had  to  the  one  nation 
of  the  Jews  might  answer  good  purposes.  They  were  instru 
ments  in  the  hand  of  Providence:  had  they  seen  clearly 
to  the  end  of  their  law,  they  would  not  have  respected  it 
sufficiently  for  purposes  of  subjection  and  obedience.  But 
this  leads  us  to  apologize  for  the  obscurity  of  the  prophecies, 
by  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  delivered. 

7»  And  surely  it  will  be  enough  to  observe,  that  the 
distinctness  with  which  any  future  event  is  seen  by  the  light 
of  prophecy,  in  any  scriptural  instance,  is  proportioned  to  the 
nearness  of  that  event  to  the  times  of  him  who  sees  it. 

To  see  a  very  reihote  event  very  clearly,  could  answer  no 
purpose  of  utility  ;  but  all  we  want  to  prove  is,  that  prophecy 
is  of  divine  original.  Now,  who  but  the  supreme  Being  could 
so  proportion  the  obscurity  of  the  prediction  to  the  remoteness 
of  the  event,  as  we  find  them  proportioned  ?  If  he  made  the 
proportion,  no  more  is  wanted:  our  proofs  of  the  propriety 
of  the  prophecies,  in  different  respects,  are  all  intended  to 
terminate  here6. 


4  Lancaster,  p.  75. 

6  Hurd  on  Proph.  p.  298. 

6  Bp.  Warburton  (Works, 4to.  vol.  in. 
p.  488,)  has  observed,  that  the  prophets 
were  more  figurative  after  the  double 


senses  were  left  off;  but  this  remark 
cannot  well  be  noticed,  before  we  come 
to  speak  of  double  senses ;  nor  does  it 
seem  to  contradict  what  has  been  said 
here. 

11 — 2 


164  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  8. 

8.  Having  thus  shewn  that  we  are  not  likely  to  find  in  I. 
the  Scriptures  any  prophecies  which  are  as  plain  and  clear  231 
as  any  can  be  conceived  to  be,  let  us  go  to  those  which  approach 
nearest  to  such,  in  point  of  simplicity  ;  those  which  raise  one 
single  expectation  of  one  great  and  wonderful  event,  attended 
with  many  particular  circumstances.  The  argument,  from 
the  completion  of  an  expectation,  has  already  been  urged  in 
general :  what  we  shall  now  say  will  relate  particularly  to  the 
Jews.  That  they  did  expect  a  Messiah,  and  at  the  time  when 
our  Saviour  came  into  the  world,  cannot  well  be  doubted : 
the  expectation  appears  from  all  the  Jewish  writings,  parti 
cularly  from  their  paraphrases  of  their  Scriptures.  The  Scrip 
tures  themselves  speak  only  of  a  person,  not  mentioning  the 
Messiah  ;  but  in  the  paraphrases  the  word  Messiah  is  found 
about  seventy  times.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  it  appears 
from  the  speeches  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  (which  are  no  way 
likely  to  have  been  contrived  for  the  purpose)  that  the  point 
in  dispute  was  not  whether  the  Messiah  was  or  had  been  expect 
ed1,  but  whether  he  had  appeared.  But  it  is  urged  that  there 
was  no  reason  to  expect  the  Messiah  ;  the  Jews  grounded 
their  expectations  on  texts  which  related  to  cother  matters: 
to  settle  this  point  is  not  essential  to  our  argument.  The 
Jews  expected  a  very  great  event,  attended  with  a  number  of 
circumstances  ;  that  event  happened  ;  it  could  not  have  hap 
pened  by  chance ;  it  could  not  have  been  brought  about  by 
art :  there  is  only  the  divine  interposition  which  can  account 
for  it.  Most  probably  the  expectation  was  well  grounded,  but 
that  supposition  is  not  absolutely  necessary ;  yet  it  seems  as  if 
the  main  truth  should  be  rightly  understood  by  the  expectants,  232 
though  the  subordinate  circumstances  might  be  mistaken : 
however,  the  argument  is  valid  without  entering  into  this. 

Some  have  thought  that  there  are  no  prophecies  concerning 
Christ  which  relate  to  him  alone.  Grotius  was  of  this  opinion  ; 
(see  Div.  Leg.  B.  vi.  Sect  6.  p.  506,  8vo,  where  his  notion  is 
well  accounted  for).  But  Bishop  Chandler  shews  that  many 
prophecies  relate  immediately  to  Christ ;  or,  as  it  is  called,  in 
their  primary  sense,  or  to  Christ  alone  (page  52—162,  2d 
edit.)  And  Dr.  Postlethwaite  adds,  with  very  great  force 
of  reasoning,  Isaiah  vii.  14—16.  See  his  Sermon  preached  at 
Cambridge,  Dec.  24,  1780.  But  at  present  I  only  just  men- 

1  See  Gibson's  Pastoral  Letters,  p.  17.    Bishop  Chandler's  Defence,   Contents, 
and  Summary.  2  Powell,  Disc.  viii.  p.  125. 


I.  xvii.  9.]  PROPHECIES.  165 

I.  tion  this:  the  proper  time  for  looking  at  any  particular 
prophecies,  as  having  occasioned  disputes,  will  be  after  we 
have  treated  of  prophecies  supposed  to  have  two  senses.  This 
however  may  be  observed  now,  that  about  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  coming,  the  expectation  of  the  Jews  was  a  single 
expectation  of  a  Messiah,  and  that  this  expectation  arose  from 
the  prophecies :  whatever  other  events,  besides  the  coming  of  a 
Messiah,  any  prophecies  had  pointed  out,  those  events  were 
long  over  and  past. 

It  may  possibly  happen,  that  an  expectation  may  be  com 
pleted  by  chance,  as  in  the  case  of  the  twelve  vultures  mentioned { 
by  Bishop  Hurd.  But  what  was  said4  of  miracles  is  true  of 
prophecies  :  no  single  one  can  be  a  ground  of  faith ;  a  single 
expectation  may  be  grounded  on  many  prophecies;  and  I 
know  not  whether  too  much  attention  has  not  been  paid  to  the 
instance  just  now  mentioned.  A  city  is  to  be  built:  it  is 
natural  to  think  how  long  it  will  last :  twelve  birds  appear : 
the  conclusion  is,  it  will  last  twelve  somethings.  When  a 
233  certain  man,  an  augur,  Vettius  Valens,  about  30  or  40  years 
before  Christ,  found  that  it  had  lasted  more  than  twelve  tens 
of  years,  the  number  twelve  running  in  his  mind,  he  took  the 
next  thing,  and  said  it  would  last  twelve  hundred  years. 
Rome  was  sacked  by  Genseric  the  Vandal,  A.U.  454,  or  anno 
Urbis  conditae  1208  ;  but  it  was  afterwards  sacked  by  Totila 
king  of  the  Goths5  in  545  of  Christ,  or  u.c.  1299.  This  is 
pitiful  prophesying,  and  very  unlike  even  any  single  predic 
tion  in  the  Bible. 

9.  The  next  thing  which  occurs  is,  to  take  notice  that 
many  men  may  agree  in  an  expectation,  and  yet  disagree  about 
the  completion  of  it.  This  does  not  seem  to  affect  the  argu 
ment  to  those  who  believe  the  expectation  to  have  been  ful 
filled  :  they  must  act  after  their  own  judgment.  Others  may 
be  biassed  by  prejudice,  or  worldly  motives,  or  selfish  pas 
sions  :  those  who  believe  the  completion  cannot  help  that.  If 
we  ask  how  it  could  happen,  that  some  men  should  think  the 
common  expectation  fulfilled,  others  not?  it  may  be  answered, 
that  might  happen  by  means  of  figurative,  symbolic  language  ; 
nay,  supposing  only  that  the  expressions  on  which  the  expecta 
tion  was  grounded,  were  general,  capable  of  being  applied  to 
different  cases.  Suppose,  for  instance,  it  had  been  foretold, 
that  a  great  poet  should  be  born  in  England  in  the  17th 
3  Page  9'J.  4  Chap.  xvi.  sect.  10.  5  Blair's  Tables. 


166 


PROPHECIES. 


[I.  xvii.  9. 


century,  and   such  an  event  was  generally  expected;    those   I 
who  expected  it  most  strongly  might  doubt  whether  Milton 
was  the  man. 

But  what  we  are  principally  concerned  with  here,  is  the 
particular  case  of  the  Jews.  Of  them  it  has  been1  said,  that 
they  were  better  judges  than  we  are ;  as  they  knew  the  lan 
guage  of  the  prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah  better  than 
we  could,  and  had  a  much  nearer  mew  of  all  those  circum-  234 
stances  on  which  the  interpretation  of  languages  so  greatly 
depends. 

i.  To  this  we  answer,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
modern  Jews  do  understand  pure  Hebrew  better  than  our 
selves  ;  even  in  our  Saviour's  time  they  spoke  only  a  dialect 
of  the  Hebrew.  Probably  the  Italians  do  not  understand 
Latin  better  than  the  English  do.  If  those  who  speak  any 
language  understand  it  much  better  than  others,  it  is  chiefly  in 
familiar  idioms.  But  the  language  of  prophecy  is  not  familiar  ; 
it  is  solemn,  and  it  is  frequently  figurative. 

ii.  Foreigners  could  judge  as  well  of  Milton 's  being  the 
poet  foretold,  as  natives  of  England  could. 

iii.  The  Jews  seem  to  be  much  more  prejudiced  than  we 
are.  It  is  not  easy  to  say  how  our  prejudices  could  make 
us  admit  Jesus  as  the  Messiah ;  but  it  is  very  easy  to  see  how 
their  prejudices  could  make  them  reject  him.  He  was  poor, 
of  low  rank,  incapable  of  freeing  them  from  the  Roman  yoke, 
incapable  of  avenging  them  of  their  enemies.  And  Bishop 
Chandler  well  observes2,  that  "  ambition,  covetousness,  and 
thirst  after  revenge,"  had  cherished  the  Jewish  notion  of  a 
Messiah.  Nay,  their  own  Scriptures  represent  them  as  very 
much  prejudiced,  and  those  evasive  methods  of  interpreting, 
which  they  adopted  after  the  time  of  Jesus,  prove  them  to 
be  so :  to  which  we  may  add,  that,  in  their  evasive  interpre 
tations,  they  differ  much  from  each  other,  or,  as  Chrysostom 
says,  run  foul  of  each  other  in  the  dark. 

iv.    The  argument  must  not  be  proposed  as  if  all  the  Jews  235 
had  rejected  Jesus;  for  many  ^myriads  of  them  have  become, 
nay,  soon  became  his  followers.     And  in  modern  times  a  con 
siderable  proportion  of  the  learned  amongst  the  Jews  have  been 
converted  to  Christianity,  by  studying  the  prophecies ;    and 


1  See  Kurd  on  Proph.  Serm.  v.  p.  143, 
&c. 


2  Defence,  p.  353,  printed  p.  343— ten 
pages  wrong  all  the  way  after  p.  222. 

3  Iloo-at  fj.vpia.des,  Act.  xxi.  20. 


I.  Xvli.  10.]  PROPHECIES.  167 

I.  some  have  written  their  reasons  for  the  change4.  Nor  as  if 
the  difference  between  Jews  and  Christians  was  upon  all 
parts  of  the  question ;  for  they  are  agreed  about  the  particular 
prophecies  as  relating  to  the  Messiah,  and  about  the  time  when 
he  was  expected ;  they  differ  only  about  the  application  of 
such  prophecies. 

v.  If  the  proper  interpretation  of  a  prophecy  arises  from 
the  event,  as  will  be  shewn  hereafter,  then  those  who  are  best 
acquainted  with  the  event  are  best  able  to  interpret  the  pro 
phecy.  Any  real  facts,  which  it  is  only  pretended  were  fore 
told,  must  throw  light  upon  the  predictions,  and  prove  some 
thing  for  or  against  them.  Indeed,  the  Jews  might  study 
this  event,  but  I  suppose  they  do  not,  in  any  diligent  and 
candid  manner. 

10.  The  sort  of  prophecies  which  have  occasioned  the 
greatest  disputes,  both  of  Christians  against  infidels,  and  be 
tween  Christians  amongst  each  other,  are  those  which  were 
calculated  to  raise  more  than  one  expectation,  or  which  ad 
mitted  of  more  than  one  completion.  Bishop  Warburton  has 
treated  of  these,  in  his  masterly  way,  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
fifth  section,  and  in  the  sixth  section,  of  the  sixth  book  of  his 
236  Divine  Legation  of  Moses;  and  he  has  touched  upon  them 
not  far  from  the  end5  of  his  book  on  the  Spirit.  Bishop  Hurd 
has  strengthened  his  opinion,  by  many  strong  and  elegant 
representations,  in  his  Sermons  on  Prophecy ;  and  Bishop 
Hallifax  has  done  the  same  in  his,  by  additional  considera 
tions. 

The  argument  about  the  fulfilling  of  an  expectation,  on 
whatever  grounded,  is  independent  of  this  or  any  particular 
sort  of  prophecy :  but  it  seems  proper  for  us  to  consider  this 
sort,  though  we  seem  to  have  provided  for  the  conviction  of 
those  who  do  not  admit  it. 

Whatever  other  difficulties  may  obstruct  the  reception 
of  this  species  of  prophecies,  it  is  no  difficulty  to  the  under 
standing,  I  think,  to  conceive  a  prophecy  which  shall  cause 
one  event  to  be  be  expected  at  no  very  great  distance,  and  yet 
shall  contain  expressions  too  great  and  lofty  for  that  event ; 


4  See  Powell,  Disc.  ix.  p.  147;  with  a 
reference  to  Chapman's  Eusebius,  vol.  1st, 
at  the  end ;  p.  529,  &c.  See  also  (con 
cerning  Trajan's  time)  Bp.  Chandler's 
Introd.  p.  vii.  with  a  reference  to  Allix 
against  Unitarians,  p.  326.... The  Jews, 


at  this  time  (1793)  seem,  many  of  them, 
so  full  of  cabalistical  fancies,  that  we  can 
not  wonder  at  their  not  embracing  our 
rational  religion. 

6  Warb.  on  the  Spirit,  p.  321.     This 
more  particularly  afterwards. 


168 


PROPHECIES. 


[I.  xvii.  10. 


such  as  shall  raise  some  expectation  of  another  event  more  I. 
awful  than  the  former,  though  in  some  sort  analogous  to 
it.  This  could  not  indeed  well  be  done  if  the  language  of 
prophecy  was  perfectly  plain;  and  times,  places,  circumstances, 
were  marked  out  without  any  metaphors.  We  suppose  the 
language  of  prophecy  to  be,  in  the  cases  of  which  we  speak, 
highly  figurative,  or  symbolical,  and  to  describe  sometimes 
even  \\\£  first  event  by  metaphorical  terms1. 

When  prophecies  are  supposed  to  point  out  two  events, 
the  first  event  most  commonly  relates  to  Jews,  the  second  to 
Christians  ;  but  there  seem  to  be  some  prophecies  in  Scripture 
which  point  out  two  events,  both  relating  to  the  Jews.  And 
Bishop  Warburton  mentions  one  prophecy  that  has  two  senses,  237 
both  relating  to  Christians,  or  to  the  government  of  Christ. 
Bishop  Hurd2  mentions  also  such  as  have  one  sense  relating 
to  the  person  of  Christ,  or  his  first  coming,  and  one  to  his 
Church  after  his  ascension  into  heaven,  or  to  his  second  coming. 
We  may  mention  here,  that  divines  call  Christ's  coming  in 
person  his  first  coming ;  and  his  coming,  or  exercising  his 
power  as  governor  and  judge,  his  second  coming;  though 
the  latter  is  supposed  to  commence  from  the  time  of  his  3 resur 
rection,  and  to  be  continued  and  gradual.  But  the  most 
usual  kind  of  prophecy,  with  two  senses,  is  when  one  sense 
relates  to  the  Jews,  and  the  other  to  Christians. 

I  speak  of  a  prophecy  as  raising  more  than  one  ex 
pectation  ;  but  more  than  one  needs  not  be  supposed  to 
exist  (or  at  least  to  be  strong,)  at  one  time.  There  is  no 
sure  confidence  to  be  placed  in  any  prophecy  till  the  event 
predicted  confirms  and  explains  it1;  and  therefore  great 
latitude  may  be  allowed  in  speaking  about  expectation  of 
this  kind ;  and  all  prophecies  which  have  more  senses  than 
one,  at  whatever  time  those  senses  appear,  may  belong  to 
this  head. 

But  a  few  instances  will  be  necessary  to  make  this  intel 
ligible.  First,  we  may  take  one  of  the  most  usual  sort, 
in  which  the  first  sense  relates  to  the  Jews  and  the  second 


1  Here  might  be  read  the  conclusion, 
i.  e.  the  last  two  paragraphs  of  Bp.  Kurd's 
!)th  Sermon  on  Prophecy. 

2  P.  132.  Serm.  v. 

'-'  Hurd,    opening  of  Semi.  v.      But 
Christ's  coming  to  judge  the  world  seems 


I   sometimes  to  be  considered  as  his  second 
coming.  2  Pet.  iii.  4. 

4  See  Sir  I.  Newton  on  Apoc.  Ch.  i.  p. 
251,  quoted  in  Bp.  Newton,  4to,  vol.  i. 
p.  53f>:  or  8vo,  vol.  in,  p.  7,  and  in  Bp. 
Hurd  in  three  pages,  Serm.  viii.  and  here 
afterwards. 


I.  xvii.  10.] 


PROPHECIES. 


169 


I,   to    Christianity.      That    well-known    prophecy'',    "Unto    us 

238  a  child  is  born,"  &c.,   may  well  serve  our  purpose.     Bishop 
Warburtonr>    seems   to  grant  Mr.  Collins   that    this    may  re 
late  to  a  Jewish  monarch,    and    that   the  language   may   in 
some   measure    be   accounted  for    by  the   Eastern  hyperbole. 
But   then    he  says,    that,  supposing  it   has  such  first  sense, 
in  the  second  sense  it  belongs  to  the  "monarch  of  the  world;" 
and  in  that   sense  the   words  become  plain   description ;    and 
the  language  made  use  of  is  admirably  fitted  to  connect  two 
such  senses  together. 

What  Isaiah  says,  xi.  6,  "The  wolf  shall  dwell  with 
the  lamb,11  &c.  is  understood  as  having  its  first  completion 
in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  when  profound  peace  was  enjoyed 
under  Hezekiah  after  the  troubles  under  Sennacherib ;  but 
its7  second  completion  under  the  Gospel.  I  am  inclined  to 
mention  Jer.  xxxi.  15,  where  RacheVs  weeping  for  her 
children8  is  thought,  by  Grotius,  to  be  primarily  a  pre 
diction  of  the  lamentation  of  the  Jewish  matrons  for  their 
children  carried  captive  to  Babylon.  The  evangelist9  de 
termines  its  secondary  sense,  supposing  it  had  a  prior  sense, 
to  be  the  mourning  of  the  mothers  for  the  loss  of  those 
children  who  suffered  in  Herod's  massacre. 

Bishop  Warburton10  mentions,  as  an  instance  of  a  pro 
phecy  that  had  two  senses,  both  affecting  the  Jews,  a  pas 
sage  of  Joel,  contained  in  the  first  and  second  chapters, 
in  which  the  prophet  foretells  both  a  ravage  of  locusts, 
and  a  desolation  by  the  Assyrian  army.  That  real  locusts 
are  meant,  appears  by  the  expressions  about  the  vine,  bark 
ing  the  Jig-tree,  making  the  branches  clean,  &c.,  chap.  i.  ver.  7. 

239  That  an   army  is  meant,   appears  by   the  expressions  about 
horses,  horsemen,   &c.,   in  the  first   ten  verses  of  the  second 
chapter.      "In  some  places,"  says  Bishop  Warbur ton,  "dearth 
by  insects    must  needs  be  understood — in  others,    desolation 
by  war ;   so  that  both  senses  are  of  necessity  to  be  admitted.11 

This  great  prelate11  mentions,  as  an  instance  of  a  pro 
phecy  with  two  senses,  both  regarding  the  government  of 
Christ,  that  delivered  by  our  Lord  in  the  twenty-fourth 


5  Isai.  ix.  6. 

6  Div.  Leg.  B.  vi.  sect.  vi.  8vo,  p.  460. 
4to,  p.  417. 

7  Ibid.   B.  vi.   sect.  6,  p.  499,   8vo. 
p.  450,  4  to. 


8  Ibid.  p.  492,  8vo.  p.  444,  4to. 

9  Matt.  ii.  17. 

10  Warb.  ibid.  p.  465,  8vo.  422,  4to. 

11  P.  469,  8vo.  p.  425,  4to. 


PROPHECIES. 


[I.  xvii.  11. 


chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  and  parallel  places :  which  relates  I. 
both  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  (or  Christ's 
coming  virtually  to  destroy  that  edifice  by  his  power,)  and 
to  the  future  judgment  of  the  world,  (or  Christ's  coming 
in  person  to  judge  the  world.)  Some  expressions  shew  that 
the  former  must  be  meant,  some  the  latter.1  St.  Matthew 
(xxiv.  34)  affirms,  that  all  must  be  accomplished  in  the 
then  generation ;  (so  that  all  may  be  applied  to  the  primary 
completion).  St.  Mark  (xiii.  32)  declares  that  the  time  when 
the  prophecy  would  be  completed  was  unknown  to  all  but 
the  Father.  The  former  of  these  texts  must  relate  to  the 
primary  completion,  the  latter  to  the  secondary. 

Having  given  no  instance  of  the  symbolical  language 
of  prophecy,  though  I  have  of  that  of  dreams2,  I  now  men 
tion,  that  the  primary  sense  of  the  prophecy  just  now  quoted 
is  conveyed  in  symbolical  language.  Mark  (xiii.  24 — 26) 
speaks  of  the  sun,  moon9  and  stars;  of  which  Bishop 
Warburton  remarks3,  "  The  change  of  magistracy,  the  fall  240 
of  kingdoms,  and  the  revolutions  of  states,  are  described, 
in  the  old  language  of  inspiration,  by  disasters  in  the 
heavens,  by  the  fall  of  stars,  and  by  eclipses  of  the  greater 
luminaries." 

If  more  instances  were  wanted,  Bishop  Warburton  might 
be  taken  about  a  new  heaven*  and  a  new  earth — i.  e.  a  new 
religion  and  a  new  law. 

Or  the  opening  of  Bishop  Kurd's  tenth  sermon,  pp.  318,  319, 
about  incense,  treading  a  wine-press,  &c. 

11.  In  disputes5  on  our  present  subject,  confusion  is 
apt  to  arise  from  want  of  attention  to  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  literal  and  mystical.  When  there  are  two  senses 
of  a  prophecy,  the  primary  sense  is  sometimes  called  the 
literal  sense;  but  then  we  should  remember,  that  such 
primary  sense  may  be  conveyed  under  figurative  expressions, 
which  have  therefore  a  more  literal  meaning;  as  is  the  case 
with  Isai.  xi.  6,  and  Jer.  xxxi.  15.  And  in  the  use  of  the 


1  This  idea  seems  to  be  strongly  con 
firmed  by  the  uncertainty  in  which  some 
of  Christ's  principal  disciples  seem  to 
have  been,  with  regard  to  the  time  of  his 
future  coming:  they  seem  not  to  have 
known  whether  to  expect  him  soon  (in 
order  to  accomplish  the  consummation 
of  all  things,  judge  the  world,  &c.)  or 


not.    See  Dr.  Cooke's  Sermon  on  2  Pet.  i. 
19,  p.  12. 

2  Under  Sect.  f>. 

3  Div.  Leg.  B.  vi.  sect.  6.  p.  471,  8vo. 
427,  4to. 

4  Ibid.  B.  vi.  sect.  6.  p.  502,  or  4to, 
p.  452. 

6  Ibid,  p.  491,  &c.  8vo. 


I.  xvii.  12.] 


PROPHECIES. 


171 


I.  word  mystical,  we  must  observe  what  it  is  opposed  to :  if 
to  the  most  literal,  then  it  may  mean  only  figurative,  and 
therefore  it  may  be  the  primary6  sense ;  if  it  be  opposed 
to  primary,  or .  to  literal,  in  the  sense  of  primary,  it  will 
mean  the  secondary,  or  hidden  sense. 

12.  This  subject  of  double  senses  of  prophecies  is  the 
more  nice,  because  many  learned7  Christians  have  been  pre 
judiced  against  it;  and  their  objections  have  been  eagerly 
seized  upon  by  8  infidels.  Prejudices  have  arisen,  partly 
from  the  excess  of  allegorizing,  into  which  some  men  have 
241  run ;  partly  from  the  idea  that  allowing  double  senses  was 
fantastic,  and  favourable  to  enthusiasm — that  it  encouraged 
mystery,  and  made  the  Scriptures  resemble  the  old  Pagan 
Oracles.  In  fact,  men  have  been  the  less  tractable  about  it, 
because  they  have  not  been  familiarized  to  it ;  which  none 
could  well  be  but  Jews,  because  it  was  a  thing  peculiar  to 
their  religious  situation.  Indeed  we  have  mentioned  one 
instance  in  Christianity9,  but  it  was  addressed  to  Jews,  and 
is  probably  a  single  one :  the  Jews  were  so  accustomed  to  the 
kind  of  thing,  that  they  made  no  difficulty  about  it. 

Our  business  is  to  throw  aside  our  prejudices,  to  put  our 
selves  into  the  place  of  the  Jews,  and  to  ask  ourselves,  whether 
we  have  any  solid  reason  for  rejecting  the  notion  of  double 
senses  ?  There  is  no  impossibility,  no  absurdity,  in  prophetic 
figurative  phrases  pointing  out  two  events.  Supposing  we  saw 
no  good  in  it,  we  cannot  say  that  God  might  not  use  such  a 
method.  It  is  agreeable  to  the  feelings  of  the  human  mind ; 
all  the  10  ancients  run  into  something  very  near  it,  as  near  as 
human  foresight  and  imagination  would  allow:  perhaps  the 
Easterns  most  frequently,  but  Virgil  and  Horace  have  been 
very  useful  in  illustrating11  our  subject,  and  the  more  modern 
Spenser. 

But,  in  truth,  we  may  see  (though  that  is  more  than  God 
was  any  way  obliged  to  shew  us)  a  great  deal  of  propriety  in 
the  Jews  being  informed  of  great  events  to  come,  by  prophecies 
with  double  senses.  Their  dispensation  was  temporary  and 


6  As  in  Daniel's  weeks. 

7  Dr.  Postlethwaite  speaks,  page  2,  of 
"the  subtle  doctrine  of  double  senses." 
Subtilis  is  sometimes  used  in  Latin  with 
out  blame,  for  "  refined,"  &c.  but  here 
the  sentence,  taken  entire,  seems  rather  to 
imply  some  apprehension  of  error — some 


want  of  entire  satisfaction. 

8  See  Warb.  on  Grace,  p.  321,  &c. 

9  Matt.  xxiv. 

10  This  Collins  allows;  see  Warb.  Div. 
Leg.  B.  vi.  sect.  6.  p.  510,  8vo. 

11  See  Warb.  Div.  Leg.  B.  vi.  sect.  6. 
and  Kurd,  Serm.  iv.  p.  114. 


172 


PROPHECIES. 


[I.  xvii.  13. 


preparatory :  they  "must  be  suffered  to  venerate  their  own  I. 
laws  and  polity ;  and  the  Mosaic  religion  was  the  only  reli-  242 
gion  they  had.  Had  they  looked  upon  it  as  mere  scaffolding, 
they  would  have  wanted  principles  and  sentiments  of  piety, 
and  motives  to  obedience1  and  subjection:  the  state  to  which 
their  religion  was  to  conduct  men  must  be  very  obscurely 
pointed  out  to  them,  and  yet  some  intimations  of  it  must  be 
given;  how  could  that  be  better  effected  than  by  prophecies 
with  double  senses?  what  could  connect  so  well,  what  could 
open  so  faintly,  and  yet  so  awfully  ?  This  method  would 
afford  them  proofs2,  from  time  to  time,  that  their  prophets 
had  told  them  the  truth ;  and  would  raise  in  them  devout 
expectation  of  what  yet  remained  for  themselves  or  their 
posterity. 

This  method  was  adapted  to  the  Jews  before  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah,  but  the  great  benefit  of  it  must  be  seen  and 
felt  after  his  coming.  When  the  double  prophecies  had 
ceased  for  some  centuries,  then  all  the  parts  of  the  scheme 
must  appear  connected  together;  one  wisdom  must  be  seen  to 
have  guided  and  conducted  the  whole;  one  power  to  have 
presided  over  it,  and  to  have  mixed  light  and  shade  in  such 
a  manner  as  would  produce  the  best  and  greatest  effects. 

Surely  this  must  do  away  our  prejudices.  As  to  the  Pagan 
oracles,  they  were  nothing  like  Jewish  prophecies  ;  they  would 
by  no  means  answer  the  descriptions  now  given :  they  had 
ambiguity  indeed,  but  could  it  be  said  that  the  most  obvious 
sense  led  to  one  useful  sort  of  conduct,  and  afterwards  a  more 
mystical  sense  to  a  conduct  more  highly  useful?  that  the 
various  meanings  of  one  oracle,  and  the  various  answers  of 
different  oracles,  all  made  one  scheme  or  system,  calculated  to 
promote  the  "highest  good  to  mankind?  and  that  the  more  243 
their  predictions  were  reflected  on,  the  more  clearly  did  they 
manifest  an  uniformity  of  design,  an  equability  of  benevo 
lence? 

13.  It  is  not  unnatural  for  us  to  wish  to  form  some 
conception  of  what  passed  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  when 
he  foretold  things  in  the  manner  now  described.  What  did  he 
feel  ?  what  did  he  see  ?  particularly,  did  he  see  both  the 
events  which  his  words  delineated,  one  as  a  near  object  and 
more  distinct^  the  other  as  more  remote  and  obscure  ?  We 


1  End  of  sect.  6.  Bp.  Hallifax,  Serm.  i. 
p.  11. 


2  See    Kurd,    p.    127 ;    or    Pascal' 
Thoughts. 


I.  xvii.  14.] 


PROPHECIES. 


173 


I.  know  not  the  truth  exactly3 ;  but  it  seems  very  probable  that 
the  prophet  was  greatly  warmed  and  elevated  in  his  feelings 
by  the  prospects  which  opened  upon  him.  Probably  he  had 
some  glimpse  or  glimmering  of  the  noblest  event  which  the 
words  he  used  could  possibly  describe,  or  ever  give  men  rea 
son  to  expect ;  and  that  imperfect  view,  though  too  faint  and 
confused  to  be  described  minutely  to  others,  probably  made 
his  heart  overflow  with  sublimity,  and  enriched  and  ennobled 
his  expressions  beyond  what  was  necessary  to  describe  the 
nearer  and  more  distinct  event. 

14.  If  therefore  any  one  was  to  ask,  how  we  judge  when 
any  prophecies  do  contain  a  secondary  as  well  as  a  primary 
sense  ?  we  might  reply,  we  conclude  so  when  we  find  a  lofti 
ness  of  expression  which  is  unsuitable  to  the  first  event,  but 
which,  at  the  same  time  that  it  might,  by  hyperbole  and 
amplification,  be  conceived  to  express  that,  expressed  a  second 
event  more  grand,  noble,  and  extensive  than  the  former,  easily, 
naturally,  and  with  a  sort  of  accuracy.  This  seems  particu 
larly  applicable  to  the  prophetic  Psalms.  The  second  seems 
to  have  two  senses  running  through  it  most  evenly :  in  the  45th, 
244  the  spouse  meaning  the  Church,  does  not  fall  in  easily  with  our 
customary  notions  and  feelings,  though  it  would  with  those  of 
Fenelon ;  but  the  110th,  though  "a  Psalm  of  David"  can 
belong  scarce  at  all  to  himself  (when  in  the  first  person  singu 
lar),  but  must  belong  wholly,  or  very  nearly  so,  to  the  Mes 
siah.  Notwithstanding  what  has  been  said,  it  should  not  be 
denied,  that  some  secondary  senses  found  in  the  Gospels  are 
such  as  could  not  be  proved  to  have  been  intended,  without 
allowing  authority  to  him  who  affixes  the  senses.  However, 
it  is  no  way  illogical4  to  prove  the  divine  authority  of  Scrip 
tural  interpretations  of  prophecies,  from  their  being  in  Scrip 
ture,  so  long  as  we  have  not  proved  the  divine  authority  of 
Scripture  by  those  prophecies. 

I  would  recommend  it  to  you  to  compare  Dr.  Postle- 
thwaite^s  interpretation5  of  Isaiah  vii.  14 — 16,  with  Bishop 
Kurd's6.  The  difference  is  not  so  great  as  at  first  it  might 
seem ;  for,  though  Bishop  Hurd  conceives  the  prophecy  to  be 
intended  to  comfort  Aha%9  and  the  sign  spoken  of  to  be  the 


3  1  Pet.  i.  10—12,  seems  to  give  some 
answer. 

4  Warb.  Div.  Leg.  B.  vi.  sect.  6.  p. 
488,  8vo. 


6  In  his  Sermon  preached  at  Cambridge , 
Dec.  24,  1780. 
e  Serm.  v.  p,  130. 


174 


PROPHECIES. 


[I.  xvii.  14. 


birth  of  Isaiah's  son,  to  whom  the  symbolic  name  of  Maher-  I. 
shalal-hash-baz  was  ordered  to  be  given,  yet  both  own  that 
the  prophecy  belongs  to  Christ ;  and  both  say,  that  the  fate  of 
the  two  kings  was  to  be  a  sign  or  proof  of  the  Messiah's 
coming  of  the  house  of  David:  these  are  the  main  matters. 
Bishop  Hurd  owns  that  nothing  more  was  meant  than  "as 
surance"  to  Ahaz.  He  makes  more  use  indeed,  of  the  birth 
soon  to  happen,  than  Dr.  Postlethwaite,  but  he  does  not  make 
it  a  miracle  in  Ahaz's  judgment.  Dr.  Postlethwaite  seems  to 
look  upon  it  only  as  a  way  of  calculating  time  ;  except  indeed 
as  it  was  a  fact  registered,  and  the  name  imposed  superna- 
turally,  implying  divine  interference,  and  a  promise  of  victory.  245 
But,  as  to  our  present  subject,  as  to  the  difference  between  a 
single  and  a  double  prophecy,  it  seems  only  (or  chiefly)  to 
depend  upon  the  likeness  between  the  deliverance  of  Ahaz  and 
the  redemption  of  Christians.  Suppose  only  one  prophecy, 
and  the  deliverance  of  Ahaz  strongly  to  resemble,  or  rather  to 
be  a  prefiguration  of  our  deliverance  through  Jesus  Christ, 
and  then  the  prophecy  assumes  the  form  (or  nearly)  of  a 
prophecy  with  two  senses;  but  suppose  the  deliverance  of 
Ahaz  to  have  no  analogy  to  Christian  deliverance,  and  then 
there  is  only  one  prophetical  meaning,  and  that  relates  to 
the  birth  of  Christ:  and  the  deliverance  of  Ahaz  becomes 
a  mere  sign,  proof,  argument,  that  the  promise  of  a  Messiah 
will  faithfully  be  fulfilled.  The  birth  of  Isaiah's  son  was 
foretold,  as  much  as  that  of  Jesus  Christ ;  but  by  a  separate 
prophecy. 

As  something  relative  to  the  subject  of  double  senses  will 
occur  when  we  speak  of  types,  and  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  New,  we  may  close  it  for  the  present,  by  the 
concession  which  bishop  Warburton  seems  to  make  to  Mr. 
Collins :  "  Most  of  the  prophecies  in  question  relate  to  Jesus 
in  a  secondary  sense  only,  and  the  rest  in  a  primary,  but 
expressed  in  figurative  terms ;  which,  till  their  completion, 
threw  a  shade  over  their  meaning,  and  kept  them  in  a  certain 
degree  of  obscurity2." 


1  Div.  Leg.  B.  vi.  sect  6.  p.  496,  8vo. 

3  Here  we  might  read  Bp.  Warbur- 
ton's  History  of  Double  Prophecies,  Es 
say  on  Spirit,  p.  321 — 324 ;  consider  any 
of  the  prophecies  referred  to  briefly  in 
the  8th  section  of  this  Chapter,  as  relat 
ing  to  Christ  in  the  primary  sense,  and 


to  Christ  only;  and  take  in  what  Bp. 
Warburton  says  of  Grotius*,  as  far  as 
we  found  it  convenient.  We  might  also 
mention  again  the  remark  of  Warburton, 
introduced  at  the  end  of  the  7th  section 
of  this  Chapter. 
*  Vol.  IT.  8vo,  p.  506,  or  vol.  HI.  4to,  p.  456. 


I.  Xvil.  15.] 


PROPHECIES. 


175 


I.          15.    Having  then  treated  of  prophecies  raising  one  single 

246  expectation,    and  of  tho'se  raising  a  twofold  expectation,  we 
come  next  to  those  prophecies  which  have  raised  no  expecta 
tion:  but,  under  this  head,  we  shall  comprehend  not  only 
those  whose  existence  was  discovered  by  the  event,  but  those 
whose  principal  meaning  was  so  discovered.     That  an  event  is 
capable  of  bringing  to  light  a  prediction  relating  to  itself,  has 
been  briefly  shewn  before3;  but  what  was  said  was  not  only 
short,  but  general.     Our  present  business  must  be  to  produce 
a  few  instances;    first  repeating,  that  all  we  want  is,   such 
coincidence  of  previous  arrangement  and  subsequent  event  as 
could  not  be  owing  to  art  or  accident.      So  as  we  find  this 
coincidence  at  last,  it  matters  not  whether  the  prophecy  or  the 
completion  is  the  first  to  make  its  appearance.     But  I  wish 
also  to  give  one  sentence  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton4,  on  account  of 
the  great  and  deserved  authority  of  his  name,  particularly  in 
this  University. 

"  The  folly  of  interpreters  (he  is  speaking  of  the  Apoca 
lypse)  has  been,  to  foretel  times  and  things  by  this  prophecy, 
as  if  God  designed  to  make  them  prophets.  By  this  rashness 
they  have  not  only  exposed  themselves,  but  brought  the  pro 
phecy  also  into  contempt.  The  design  of  God  was  much 
otherwise.  He  gave  this,  and  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament,  not  to  gratify  men's  curiosities  by  enabling  them 
to  foreknow  things,  but  that  after  they  were  fulfilled  they 
might  be  interpreted  by  the  event,  and  his  own  providence, 
not  the  interpreter's,  be  then  manifested  thereby  to  the  world5.'1 

247  This  passage  gives  a  right  idea  of  interpreting  by  the  event, 
and  is  therefore  particularly  applicable  to   those  prophecies 
whose   existence,   or  whose  meaning,  is  not  conceived  to  be 


3  Close  of  sect.  4. 

4  On  the  Apocalypse,  Chap.  i.  p.  251. 
See  also  Bishop  Porteus's  Charge  of  1794, 
p.  29,  where  he  says,  "I  pretend  not 
either  to  prophecy  or  to  interpret  pro 
phecy." 

6  Dr.  Cooke,  in  the  Sermon  lately  men 
tioned,  says,  that  the  meaning  of  St. 
Peter's  expression,  2  Pet.  i.  20,  is,  that  no 
prophecy  interprets  itself;  that  every  pro 
phecy  is  interpreted  by  the  event.  This 
notion,  he  says,  gives  the  right  meaning 
of  ISia?,  and  agrees  with  the  context.  ISias 
eiriXiWcos  is  translated  in  our  version, 
of  private  interpretation.  One  might  add, 


that,  in  other  kinds  of  writing,  each  sen 
tence  is  intended  to  interpret  itself.  Get 
the  right  meaning  of  the  words  (includ 
ing  circumstances,  according  to  Chap,  x.) 
and  you  have  the  full  meaning  of  the 
sentence:  not  so  in  prophecies:  if  the 
words  of  a  prophecy  are  ever  so  well  un 
derstood,  it  is  still  but  a  light  shining 
in  a  dark  place ;  the  phosphorus,  the  rfay, 
is  to  shine  forth  in  the  event.— 1793,  Feb. 
27,  Dr.  Cooke  refers  me  for  the  sense  of 
eTTtXvo-ews  to  such  places  as  Mark  iv.  34, 
where  tireXve  implies,  he  took  off  the 
•7rapo/3oX»f» 


176  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  15. 

known  but  from  their  completion; — those  which  have  raised    I. 
no  expectation,  or  none  corresponding  to  the  meaning  which 
they  are  found  to  contain1. 

Instances  to  our  present  purpose  are  to  be  found  both  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testament : — though  we  must  not  be  too 
particular. 

Before  we  mention  instances,  we  may  as  well  observe,  that 
a  single  event  may  answer  to  a  seeming  prediction  by  acci 
dent  ;  as  the  discovery  of  America  corresponds  to  Seneca1  s 
prediction,  mentioned  by  Bishop  Hurd,  p.  102.  After  what 
was  said  on  the  expectation  of  the  continuance  of  Rome, 
(sect.  9?)  we  need  only  observe,  that  it  required  no  prophetic 
spirit  to  say,  as  some  countries  have  been  discovered  unex 
pectedly,  so  others  will  be.  This  is  nothing  more  than  con 
cluding  from  analogy ;  only  in  a  chorus  the  thought  or  con 
clusion  must  be  made  poetical,  which  it  could  not  well  be 
without  being  thrown  into  the  form  of  a  prophecy. 

The  Jews  could  not  reckon  even  the  seventy  weeks  of 
Daniel  without  the  event.  (Mede  quoted  by  Hurd,  p.  395.) 

The  book  of  Revelation  raised  at  first  but  little  expecta-  248 
tion ;  or,  more  properly  perhaps,  what  expectation  it  did  raise 
was  so  disappointed  and  blighted  by  difficulties  then  inexplica 
ble,  that  it  died  away.  "  The  early  Christians,"  says  2 Bishop 
Hurd,  "  saw  so  little  in  this  prophecy,  that  they  were  led  by 
degrees  to  neglect  the  study  of  it."  Scaliger  commends 
Calvin  for  not  writing  upon  it;  and  Whitby,  even  after  the 
time  of  Mede,  enforces  the  commendation,  and  makes  it  his 
own  apology  for  declining  the  task.  But  this  will  never  be 
the  case  again,  in  all  probability.  The  prophecies  in  this 
book  having  been  in  a  degree  unfolded  by  events;  and  some 
wonderful  efforts  having  been  made  to  find  the  order  and  plan 
of  it,  the  ages  as  they  rise  will  be  watched  for  new  events,  in 
order  to  bring  out  new  explications. 

It  is  thought  that  the  prophetic  doctrine  concerning 
Antichrist  was  intended  to  be  hidden,  or  mysterious,  till  the 
12th  century3.  If  so,  the  use  that  was  made  of  the  name 
of  Antichrist  before  that  time  was  only  so  much  declamation. 
I  would  in  this  book  (of  my  system)  confine  myself  to 
opinions  common  to  all  sects  of  Christians ;  therefore  I  will 
only  say,  that  events  must  determine  all  controversies  con- 

1  Bp.  Hurd  speaks  well  on  this  sub-          2  Serm.  viii.  p.  275. 
ject,  pp.  118,  119,  (Serm.  iv.)  3  Hurd,  p.  230,  from  Mede. 


I.  xvii.  lG.]  PROPHECIES.  1)7 

J.  cerning  Antichrist,  the  Man  of  Sin,  and  the  Apostasy  of  the 
latter  times. 

John  ii.  19,  might  be  another  instance;  and  it  is  well  put 
by  Dr.  Powell  in  his  ninth  Discourse.'1;  ("Destroy  this  temple, 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up,")  where  he  mentions,  Matt, 
xxiv.  28,  (eagles  gathered  together)  taken  from  Job  xxxix.  ,30. 

I  will  only  mention  one  instance  more :  that  is,  the  53d 
21-9  chapter  of  Isaiah,  or  rather,  the  passage  beginning  with  the 
last  three  verses5  of  the  52d  chapter  and  reaching  to  the  end 
of  the  53d.  This  makes  the  12th  and  last  of  the  passages 
adduced  by  Bishop  Chandler,  as  belonging  to  Christ  in  their 
primary  sense.  Nothing  can  well  be  more  circumstantial  than 
this  passage  is  at  present,  and  yet  the  proof  arising  from  it 
depends  upon  the  event:  till  that  happened,  the  person  to 
whom  it  was  to  be  applied  seemed  to  be  somewhat'5  uncertain. 
It  has  been  applied  by  the  Jews,  since  our  Saviour's  time,  to 
Jews  as  a  body,  to  Jeremiah,  and  Josiah.  "  Of  whom  does 
Isaiah  write?"  "it  is  an  hard  lesson,"  saith  Aben  Ezra;  but 
the  Jews,  before  our  Saviour's  time,  applied  the  passage  to  the 
Messiah7;  and  Jesus  was  the  only  person,  "of  all  the  human 
race,  to  8whom  the  whole  of  it  is  applicable." 

16.  The  evils  of  interpreting  hastily,  without  the  event  as 
a  key,  or,  in  other  words,  of  indulging  expectation  built  on 
prophecy,  have  been  great  :  men  have  by  that  drawn  ridicule 
upon  themselves,  and  discredit  upon  the  sacred  writings9.  To 
this  may  be  reduced  the  notion  of  the  Jews,  that  there  was  to 
be  a  two-fold  Messiah  :  their  prejudices  were  so  fixed,  that 
rather  than  give  them  up,  and  interpret  the  prophecies  calmly 
and  candidly,  by  the  event,  they  had  recourse  to  this  hypo 
thesis.  I  say  hypothesis :  had  it  been  an  event  which  had 
made  them  adopt  such  an  interpretation,  the  case  would  have 
been  different ;  but  it  was  the  event,  which  we  consider  as 
a  true  completion,  that  made  them  alter™  the  course  of  their 


4  Powell,  p.  138. 


5  Chandler.  Bp.  Pearson  on  the  Creed. 
Lowth.  6  Powell,  p.  140. 

7  Bp.  Chandler,  p.  loi>,  1,V.»,  near  the 
end  of  2d  chapter. 

8  Powell,  p.  140.         9  Bp.  Newton. 

10  That  the  Jews  expected  only  one 
Messiah,  is  shewn  by  Chapman  in  his 
Eusebius,  Cambr.  (1739),  chap.  vi.  p. 
497,  from  the  Scriptural  expressions  about 


Trypho  in  Justin  Martyr.  That  the 
doctrine  of  a  double  Messiah  is  now  in 
Rabbinical  writings,  appears  from  quo 
tations  in  Pearson  on  the  Creed  out  of  the 
Talmud  and  the  later  Targum;  that  it  is 
derived  only  from  late  Kabbis,  is  shewn 
by  Pocock  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Com- 
ment  on  Malachi;  so  says  Chapman, 
ibidem.  I  suppose  the  time  of  the  le- 
(jinniny  of  the  doctrine  is  not  exactly 


I  fie   Christ — <<  tpx°Ve''°s'»  &c.  and  from   !    known. 

VOL.  I.  12 


178  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  17- 

expectation ;  which  is  a  strong  proof  both  of  their  obstinacy,    I. 
(and  at  the  same  time  of  their  being  much  pressed)  and  of  the  250 
correspondence  of  the  life  and  character  of  Jesus  to  the  scrip 
tural  predictions. 

Marcion,  the  Christian  heretic,  professed  two  Messiahs: 
one  ours,  who  lived  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  and  was  to 
redeem  the  world ;  the  other  not  then  come,  who  was  to 
redeem  Israel : — but  the  Jews  make  one  a  suffering  Messiah, 
the  other  triumphant;  that  is,  they  confound  the  prophecies 
about  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  with  those  relating  to  his 
government.  No  doubt  the  marks  and  characters  are  very 
discordant,  but  the  more  discordant  they  are,  the  less  likely 
they  are  to  be  invented ;  and,  if  we  see  such  seeming  incon 
sistencies  reconciled  in  one  person,  that  person  is  marked  the 
more  strongly,  and  the  whole  business  shews  more  evidently 
the  Divine  interposition1.  This  is  also  forcibly  and  well  251 
insisted  on  by  Dr.  Powell  in  his  ninth  Discourse2. 

17.  The  business  of  the  divine  then,  with  regard  to  pro 
phecies,  will  partly  relate  to  language,  arid  partly  to  history. 
He  will  have  every  language  to  study  in  which  any  prophecy 
has  been  delivered  or  quoted  by  authority,  with  the  figurative 
modes  of  speech  customary  to  each.  But,  besides  language, 
properly  so  called,  he  will  find  it  necessary  to  learn  the  lan 
guage  of  symbols,  or  hieroglyphics ;  which,  though  less  arbi 
trary  in  itself  than  alphabetical  language,  has  fewer  regular 
helps,  such  as  those  of  grammars  and  dictionaries :  it  must 
partly  be  acquired  from  Oneirocritics,  and  partly  from  instances 
of  ancient  Divination.  But,  as  prophecies  can  never  safely 
be  interpreted  without  a  knowledge  of  the  event  predicted, 
the  divine  will  be  called  upon  to  study  history ;  with  chrono 
logy  and  geography  of  course.  History  will  shew  the  primary 

1  So  that  every  argument  in  favour  of  elude  that  Christianity  is  not  ra/iona/,  be- 

two  Messiahs  is  a  confirmation   of  our  cause  those  worshippers  do  not  accept  it ! 

arguments  in  favour  of  one.     If  I  was  a  !        The  only  apology  for  the  whimsical 

Jew,  I  think  I  should  always  avoid  that  disquisitions  of  the  Jews,  that  I  know  of, 

argument.  !    is  the   distinction,   hereafter  explained, 

To  what  was  mentioned,   sect.  4,  of  j    (sect.  19)  between  pursuit  of  truth  and 

the  small  degree  in  which  the  modern  |    entertainment :  the  Jews,  it  seems,  are 

Jews  cultivate  reason,  might  be  added  entertained  with  cabalistical  fancies  re- 

the  speech  made  by  Lord  George  Gordon  lating  to  their  law ;  but  will  all  fanciful 

(1793)  in  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  in  .Jewish  writers  allow  their  writings  to  be 

favour  of  being  covered  (having  hat,  or  mere  entertainment?  and  to  contain  no 

cap  on)  in  a  court  of  justice.     Go  also  to  doctrine? 

synagogue- worship  in  London,  and  con-  .        -  Powell,  p.  143,  &c. 


I.  xvii.  18.]  PROPHECIES.  179 

I.  completions  of  prophecies,  as  also  their  secondary  completions, 
which,  having  a  mutual  resemblance,  must  be  compared :  the 
fortunes  of  the  Church  must  be  narrowly  watched,  and  refer 
red  from  time  to  time  to  the  sacred  prophetical  books.  And, 
as  heathen  nations  have  frequently  been  noticed  in  prophecy, 
profane  history  must  be  read  as  well  as  sacred;  nay,  as  it 
is  the  distinguishing  advantage  of  arguments  from  prophecy, 
that  they  continue  in  force  to  all  ages,  and  as  the  Christian 
religion  is  to  be  preached  to  all  nations,  it  is  difficult  to  say 
what  part  of  history  may  be  totally  neglected. 

18.  We  come  now  to  the  subject  of  types  ;  which  subject 
is  allied  to  that  of  double  senses.  Bishop  Warburton  treats 
them  together  in  the  6th  book  of  his  Divine  Legation  of  Mo 
ses.  As  there  is  a  prejudice  against  types,  resembling  that 

252  against  double  senses  of  prophecies,  we  will  endeavour  to 
proceed  in  an  orderly  manner. 

Words  are  the  signs  of  our  ideas ;  but  actions  may  be 
so  equally  ;  hence  our  different  modes  of  expression  by  words 
will  have  modes  of  expression  by  action  corresponding  to  them. 
Expressions  by  words  may  be,  1.  plain,  2.  metaphorical, 
3.  allegorical: — and  so  may  expressions  by  action.  1.  Ges 
tures  may  be  expressive  of  something  directly  and  immediately  ; 
or,  2.  by  some  resemblance  or  analogy ;  or,  3.  there  may  be 
a  series  of  gestures  expressive,  by  resemblance  or  analogy, 
of  some  incidents  in  succession,  or  of  some  agreement  or  com 
pact.  These  last  are  called  by  Bishop  Chandler,  "parables 
in  action ,-"  by  Bishop  Warburton,  "  significant  actions" 
The  word  TrapafloXtj,  in  Scripture,  means  an  allegory,  whether 
expressed  by  words  or  by  other  signs ;  i.  e.  by  signs  audible 
or  visible.  But  illustration  may  be  required  : — 1.  We  ex 
press  things  by  plain  words,  when  we  speak  of  a  field  sown 
with  wheat.  2.  We  speak  metaphorically,  when  we  talk 
of  sowing  the  seeds  of  discord.  3.  We  speak  allegorically, 
or  by  a  parable,  when  we  talk  of  seed  sown  in  beaten  paths 
bringing  no  fruit,  of  that  sown  in  thorny  ground  producing 
but  little,  of  that  sown  in  good  ground  yielding  a  great 
increase;  if  we  mean,  that  advice  given  to  those  that  are 
hardened  does  no  good ;  to  those  that  are  much  occupied 
by  worldly  things,  is  but  of  momentary  service ;  to  those 
who  are  well  disposed  and  well  brought  up,  is  abundantly 
useful.  In  action,  we  express  ourselves  plainly,  when  we 
converse  by  our  fingers,  or  send  a  flag  of  truce,  (supposing 

12 — 2 


180  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  J8. 

the  meaning  of  such  actions  to  be  agreed  upon,)  or  leap  for  I. 
joy,  or  wring  our  hands  througli  sorrow.  We  express  our 
selves  metaphorically  (as  I  conceive)  whenever  the  act  has 
a  meaning  by  any  kind  of  resemblance,  even  though  that  mean 
ing  be  settled.  Bowing  and  kneeling  have  some  sort  of  affinity  253 
or  likeness  to  humility  and  submission ;  and  the  same  of 
striking  a  ship,  and  of  doing  penance  in  white  linen,  and 
administering  the  sacraments ;  or,  if  we  prefer  an  instance 
from  profane  history,  the  striking  off  the  heads  of  the  poppies, 
Liv.  i.  541.  But  as  to  the  third  sort  of  expression  by  action, 
in  the  way  of  continued  metaphor  or  allegory,  or  parable 
in  action,  I  do  not  recollect  an  instance  of  it,  without  recur 
ring  to  ancient  times.  Some  historic  dances,  or  pantomimes, 
may  be  instances  of  continued  plain  expression ;  but  in  the 
Scriptures  we  meet  with  frequent  instances  of  parables  in 
action.  The  Prophet  Ezekiel  abounds  with  them :  we  might 
take  the  12th  chapter  and  3d  verse,  as  explained  by  Bishop 
Warburton2,  or  Bishop  Chandler3;  or  Jer.  xviii.  1,  which 
may  be  more  interesting,  on  account  of  its  relation  to  Rom. 
ix.  21  ;  or  our  Saviour's  intimation  of  his  design  to  call 
the  Gentiles  into  his  religion,  given  by  driving4  the  money 
changers  out  of  the  temple.  But  the  most  important  thing 
of  this  sort  in  the  Old  Testament  seems  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac, 
according  to  Bishop  WarburtoiTs  interpretation5,  with  Abra 
ham's  receiving  his  son  from  the  dead  in  a  figure,  ey  TrapafioXfi, 
(Hebr.  xi.  17);  and  with  John  viii.  56' — "  Your  father  Abraham 
rejoiced  to  see  my  day  ;  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad."  Abraham, 
having  received  repeated  promises  of  some  great  spiritual  254 
blessing  to  his  posterity,  may  be  supposed  to  have  entreated 
Jehovah  to  give  him  some  idea  of  the  nature  of  it,  and  Jeho 
vah  to  have  replied  to  his  entreaties,  c  I  will  comply;1 — "take 
thy  son,  &c."  If  such  be  allowed  to  be  the  opening  of  the 
transaction,  Abraham  must  look  upon  what  he  was  ordered 
to  do  as  an  answer  to  his  inquiry  :  he  must  proceed  to  obey 

1  Sextus  Tarquinius  lived  among  the   j       2   jjiv>    Legt    p.  vi.    sect.  5.  p.  377, 
Gabii,  and  made  himself  very  popular       }}vo> 


amongst  them  ;  but  he  and  his  father, 
Tarquinius  Superbus,  who  was  at  Home, 
were  really  only  joining  in  stratagems 
against  them.  Sextus  sends  a  messen 
ger  to  Superbus;  no  audible  answer  is 


Defence,  Chap.  iii.  sect.  1.  p.  1/1, 


2d  edit. 


Bp.  Kurd's  Discourse  on  the  sub 


ject  would  shew  several  instances. 


given :   the   messenger  returned    relates  !       *  £>iv.  Leg.  B.  vi.  sect.  5. 
what  he  has  tn-ni. 


I.  Xvii.   18.]  I'llOPHECIKS.  181 

I.  the  directions  given  him,  studying  every  step  as  a  source  of 
information:  sometimes  alarmed,  but  encouraging  himself:  'it 
is  a  good  God  who  directs,'  he  would  say  to  himself,  '  and  he 
directs  in  compliance  with  my  request :  I  will  proceed.'  His 
proceeding  must  require  a  confidence  or  faith,  and  therefore 
this  mode  of  information  must  be  a  trial:  when  he  came  to 
the  end  of  it,  and  had  received  his  beloved  son  again  in  safety, 
he  would  form  some  such  conclusion  as  this,  though  his 
notion  would  be  obscure : — '  that  great  personage,  who  is,  in 
some  sense,  to  spring  from  my  loins,  is  also,  in  some  sense, 
to  be  of  extraordinay  dignity  ;  he  is  to  undergo  a  fate  analo- 

,  gous  to  that  which  my  son  Isaac  has  undergone ;  resembling 
it  as  reality  resembles  a  portrait  or  delineation  :  he  therefore 
must  be  really  sacrificed  ;  and  he  must  be  received  from  the 
dead  in  reality,  as  Isaac  was  in  a  parable1'.  How  great  and 
glorious  will  be  the  daif  when  all  this  shall  be  accomplished  ! 
I  have  been  elated  with  joy,  and  have  exulted  at  the  thought 
of  seeing  it;  and,  however  faint  the  vision,  I  rejoice  in  having 
been  indulged  with  it !  To  see  what  I  have  seen,  to  be  placed 
in  the  situation  in  which  I  am  placed,  is  a  most  ample  reward 
for  every  danger  I  have  seemed  to  incur,  for  every  confidence 
I  have  reposed  in  the  God  of  Abraham.' — I  should  hope  this 

255  representation  would  not  only  shew,  in  some  degree,  how  the 
sacrifice  of  Isaac  might  be  an  information  in  action,  but  how 
it  might  be  rewarded  as  a  trial.  For  the  most  formidable 
objection  to  Bishop  Warburton's  account  is,  that  if  the  trans 
action  was  an  information,  it  could  not  be  a  trial.  But, 
though  the  instance  now  given  may  be  the  most  interesting 
in  the  Old  Testament,  yet  we  should  not  here  omit  mentioning 
the  transfiguration,  intended,  as  a  significant  action,  to  en 
lighten  and  clear  up  the  prejudices  of  the  Apostles  against 
the  humiliation  and  sufferings  of  the  Messiah  ;  as  well  as  to 
mark,  with  a  splendid  boundary,  the  termination  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  and  the  beginning  of  the  Christian.  You  can 
not  read  Bishop  Porteus's  account  of  that  solemn  transaction, 
without  feeling  an  illumination  of  mind,  a  devout  yet  rational 
admiration  of  the  ways  of  God,  and  of  the  figurative  mode 
of  communicating  heavenly  knowledge. 

When   we   have   familiarised    ourselves    to    expression  by 
action,  we  should  be  prepared  for  the  admission  of  types,  in 
s  Bishop  Warburton's  highest  and  strictest  sense.      These  are 
6  Heb.  xi.  19.  7  John  viii.56.  °  P.  456, 8vo.  B.  vi.  sect.  0.  of  Div.  Leg. 


182  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  18. 

actions  expressive  of  something  beyond  themselves,  which  are  I. 
so  enjoined  that  they  become  duties  of  themselves,  though 
they  are  intended  to  lead  the  mind  to  something  farther. 
On  this  account  it  is  said,  that  their  import  is  no  longer 
arbitrary p,  but  becomes  moral ;  to  neglect  them  would  be  vice, 
or  rather  impiety.  The  reason  of  their  institution  is  sup 
posed  to  be,  to  give  "  standing1  information  ,•"  not  informa 
tion  for  any  single  business.  We  could  not  take  any  better 
instance  of  a  type  than  the  Paschal  Lamb.  It  was  intended  to 
commemorate  a  past  blessing,  to  prefigure  a  future  one ;  and  256 
the  observance  of  it  was  a  part  of  external  religion :  it  was 
an  ordinance  tending  to  nourish  religious  sentiments,  like  all  • 
other  religious  instrumental  duties.  The  same  reasons  which 
were  urged  in  favour  of  double  senses  of  prophecies,  as  suit 
able  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  as  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
that  and  the  Christian,  when  we  look  back  upon  them,  are 
applicable  to  types ;  only  we  find  more  persons  allow  of  types 
than  of  double  prophecies ;  indeed,  they  are  more  undeniable, 
as  being  more  expressly  mentioned  in  Scripture.  Yet  there 
is  a  prejudice  against  them,  and  they  have  been  carried  to 
excess. 

It  may  serve  the  purpose  both  of  explaining  and  defending 
types,  if  we  observe  that  the  Christian  religion  makes  no  use 
of  any  of  its  own ;  it  leads  to  no  future  dispensation  ;  it  has 
no  need  of  any  vail2.  Now,  if  types  had  arisen  from  enthu 
siasm,  mysticism,  or  any  corrupt  religious  principle,  they 
would  have  been  continued  still ;  for  we  have  all  perversions 
of  religious  sentiments  as  well  as  the  Jews  had  :  this  looks  as 
if  types,  under  the  Jewish  economy,  had  been  founded  in 
reason  and  utility. 

Unfortunately  Bishop  Chandler,  a  writer  of  great  eminence 
on  types  and  on  double  senses  of  prophecies,  uses  the  word 
type  in  a  sense  somewhat  different  from  Bishop  Warburton. 
It  is  a  great  imperfection  when  this  happens,  but  I  suppose 
it  happens  in  morality  as  well  as  in  revealed  religion.  Bishop 
Chandler's  Defence  seems  to  be  so  valuable  a  work  as  to  make 
it  worth  our  while,  though  no  other  authors  used  the  same 
language,  to  acquaint  ourselves  with  his  meaning.  3When 
things  are  said  of  or  to  David,  or  are  done  by  him,  or  to  037 
him,  which  do  not  in  strictness  belong  to  David,  but  to  the 

1  Div.  Le#.  p.  4r>r>,  Hvo.  R.  vi.  sect.  fi.    j  -  -J  Cor.  iii.  111. 

Gibson's  first  Pastoral  Letter,  p.  Ifi.  :i  Defence,  Chap.  iii. 


I.  xvii.  1.9.]  PROPHECIES.  183 

I.  Messiah :-,  then  David  is  said  to  be  a  type  of  the  Messiah  ;  and 
the  things  so  said  are  called  typical  prophecies.  They  are 
contradistinguished,  by  Bishop  Chandler,  to  "  allegorical  pre 
dictions"  which  seem  scarce  to  deserve  the  name  of  predic 
tions ;  they  are  rather  facts  or  events  to  which  allusion  is 
made,  after  a  manner  which  seems  to  us  somewhat  irregular : 
but  of  these  more  will  be  said  under  the  head  of  quotations. 
Bishop  Chandler  proves  that  things  are  said  of  Solomon 
which  cannot  belong  to  him  alone,  but  must  be  meant  to 
delineate  some  much  greater  character,  and  are  suitable  to 
the  Messiah  ;  that  is,  he  proves  that,  in  his  sense,  Solomon 
was  a  type  of  the  Messiah  ;  and  he  proves  the  same  concerning 
Joshua4,  the  high  priest,  and  Zerubbabel.  Elijah,  in  this 
sense,  must  have  been  a  type  of  John  the  Baptist.  To  avoid 
confusion,  we  might  call  these  personal  types. 

Though  we  mentioned  no  personal  types  but  those  of  the 
Messiah,  yet  there  might  be  types  of  others  besides  the  Messiah, 
or  even  types  of  events,  if  I  understand  Bishop  Chandler 
rightly.  I  suppose  he  would  call  all  informations  in  action, 
or  "  parables  in  action,"  typical  prophecies.  He  calls  Ezekiel 
a  type  or  sign,  when  he  5prepares  for  a  journey;  and  by  the 
series  of  actions  which  he  performs  foretells  the  captivity  of 
Zedekiah.  The  prophet  would  in  this  case  call  himself, 
according  to  f>our  translation,  "  a  sign  and  wonder*  but 
Bishop  Chandler  observes,  that  the  Hebrew  words  should  be 
rendered  "  a  type  and  an  exemplar" 

258  In  favour  of  types,  besides  what  has  been  already  advanced, 
of  their  being  suitable  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  their  appear 
ing  to  us  to  connect  the  two  dispensations  together,  we  may 
allege,  1  Cor.  x.  11,  in  the  original,  ravTa  $e  Travra  TVTTOL 
vvvefiaivov  e/cetWs-,  and  "  they  are  written  for  our  admonition, 
upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come ;"  that  is,  for  the 
admonition  and  instruction  of  Christians,  who  can  look  back 
and  see  the  harmony  of  the  whole  contrivance.  Some  speci 
mens  might  also  be  taken  out  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  : 
as  chapter  ix.  9,  23,  or  x.  1. 

19.  We  next  come  to  the  subject  of  quotations  out  of 
the  Old  Testament  found  in  the  New.  In  these  there  some 
times  seems  to  be  an  inaccuracy  and  a  misapplication,  as  well 
as  an  indulgence  of  the  imagination,  which  have  afforded 


4  Zech.  chap.  ii.  4.  &c.  chap.  iii. 

5  Ezek.  chap.  xii. 


Isai.  xx.  2,  3.     In  the  contents  of 


this  chapter  the  term  is  ;'a  type." 


PROPHECIES.  [I.xvii.  ]<). 

great  occasion  for  objections,  to  the  enemies  of  Christianity.    I. 
In  considering   these,    we   may    unite   what   Bishop   Chandler 
makes  two  subjects ;  namely,  the  texts  said  to  be  misapplied, 
and  the  allegoric  method  of  quoting. 

First,  suppose  w.e  could  give  no  account  of  this  matter, 
it  does  not  seem  of  force  enough  to  invalidate  other  argu 
ments  in  favour  of  the  Gospel,  considering  the  situation  in 
which  we  are.  The  business  turns  wholly  upon  Jewish  lite 
rature,  that  used  to  be  more  traditional  than  the  literature 
of  other  nations ;  and  the  books  which  the  Jews  had  before 
our  Saviour's  time  are  lost1.  Our  MSS.  of  the  Bible  have 
their  imperfections,  and  vary  sufficiently  from  each  other 
to  give  us  an  idea  that  quotations  might  be  made  from  MSS. 
differing  from  ours,  (see  about  quotations  from  the  Septua- 
gint,  chapter  vi.  section  4.  of  this  book)  and  that  some  diffi 
culties  are  likely  to  arise  from  those  imperfections.  Would 
it  not  be  folly,  in  such  a  situation,  to  let  the  mere  inability  259 
to  solve  a  few  difficulties  affect  our  faith  in  general  ?  I  may 
say  a  few,  speaking  with  relation  to  the  texts  of  the  Old 
Testament  quoted  in  the  New  ;  for  out  of  near  fifty  quotations 
there  are  not  above  five,  I  think,  to  which  Mr.  Collins  himself 
objects;  and  one  of  those  is  Isaiah  vii.  13,  &c.  which,  accord 
ing  to  Dr.  Postlethwaite's  interpretation,  is  quoted  in  a  manner 
perfectly  regular.  Now,  will  any  candid  man  say  it  is  pro 
bable,  that  an  irregular  citation  of  four  texts,  out  of  near 
fifty,  has  been  owing  to  either  fraud  or  folly  ?  would  those  who 
could  write  the  Gospels  and  quote  rightly  in  most  instances, 
be  so  weak  and  childish  as  to  introduce  four  texts  in  a 
manner  the  irregularity  of  which  must  strike  every  one  ? 

In  the  next  place,  the  seeming  misapplication  of  texts 
in  the  Old  Testament  may  only  be  owing  to  our  not  under 
standing  those  texts ;  and  that  evil  may  be  only  temporary. 
We  now  see  that  the  text  which  has  given  Bishop  Chandler 
the2  greatest  trouble,  would  not,  if  he  could  have  read  Dr. 
Postlethwaite's  explanation,  have  given  him  any  at  all;  and 
as  we  have  got  a  right  conception  of  this  text,  so  we  may 
hereafter  of  others. 

But  as  improvements  are  uncertain,  let  us  not  suppose  them. 
We  have  now  reason  to  think  that  no  text,  or  scarcely  any, 
was  ever  either  cited  or  alluded  to  by  our  Saviour,  but  accord- 

1  Chandler,  Introd.  p.  14,  and  Chap.  iv.  sect.  1,  2d.  edit.          "  Isai.  vii.  13,  &c. 


I.  xvii.  If).] 


PROPHECIES. 


185 


I.  ing  to  the  notions3  of  the  Jews  then  present.  The  Jews 
loved  their  law  and  their  prophets;  they  delighted  to  refer  to 
them  in  all  ways,  to  place  them  in  all  lights;  it  was  their 
taste  and  the  manner  of  their  devotion.  Maimonides  gives 

260  the  right4  account  of  this  matter: — "Our  rabbins  are  wont 

to  be  exceedingly  delighted  with  allegories,  and  to  use 

them  frequently.      Not  that  they   thought  the  allegoric  sense 
was  the  mind  and  sense  of  the  Scripture,  but  a  kind  of  plea 
sant   enigma  raised   upon   the   text  for    the  entertainment    of 

the  hearer,"  &c and  5 Aben  Ezra  speaks  much  to  the  same 

purpose  :    "  They  served  partly  to  refresh  the   mind   wearied 
with  profounder  speculations,  partly  to  strengthen  those  that 
staggered,  and  to  fill  the  empty."      Now,  if  it  is  the  duty  of 
those  who  teach  religion  to  become6  all  things  to  all  men,  that 
they  may  by  all  means  save  some,  how  could  any  one  better  be 
come  a  Jew  to  the  Jews  than  by  entering  into  their  favourite 
mode  of  persuasion?     It  gave  no  authority  to  any  sense  of  a 
passage  of  Scripture,  because    it   was    not  understood  to   do 
so  ;  it  implied  no  error,  no  falsehood  ;   (Christians  were  still  to 
prove  all  things;)  and  it  made  the  affinities  between   the  two 
dispensations,  the  harmony  of  the  divine  counsels,  to  be  more 
strongly  perceived.      This  reasoning  will  receive  strength  from 
the  observation,  that  this  kind  of  alluding,  or  arguing  if  you 
please,  was  only  used  to  Jews,  not  to  the  Gentiles.     Matthew 
and    John   use  it,   and    St.    Paul ;    Luke   and   Mark  do  not. 
And  it  should  be  considered  what  difference  there  is  between 
the  topics  addressed  to  Agrippa7,   a  learned   Jew,  and  those 
to  Felix8,   a  Roman  procurator;  as  also  that  St.  Paul  alludes 
to  heathen  authors  when  he  speaks  to  the  Athenians. 

One   thing    which   has  occasioned   difficulty  is,  quotations 
of  prophecies  being  introduced  with — "that  it  might  be  ful/il- 

261  led9;"  but  this  is  mere  idiom™:  it  means  no  more  than  apropos 
does  in  French  ;   or  than  our   saying,  '  I  dreamt  of  you  last 
night,   now  I  meet  with  you  my  dream  is  out.'     A  continued 
and   habitual  reference   to   prophecy    might  generate  or  give 
occasion  to  such  a  mode  of  expression. 


3  See  Judgment  of  the  Jews,  &c.  (by 
Allix,)  Chap.  ii.  3,  4. 

4  More  Nevochim,  iii.  43,  quoted  by 
Chandler,  v.  1. 

5  On  Lam.  i.  in  Buxt.  Lex.  Rabbin, 
p.  584,  quoted  by  Chandler,  ibid. 

6  1  Cor.  ix.  22. 


7  Acts  xxvi.  n  Ibid.  xxiv. 

!)  Whitby  has  an  Essay  on  'Lva  7r/\»j- 
/ow'6?;.  End  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel. 
And  consult  Chandler,  p.  222,  2d  edit, 
note. 

1(1  I  lor.  Art.  Poet.  72.  Not.  in  Usum 
L>elph. 


186  PROPHECIES.  [T.  xvii.  19. 

But  it  may  be  proper  to  take  a  few  instances.  Matt.  ii.  I. 
15,  "  And  was  there  (in  Egypt)  until  the  death  of  Herod  : 
that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by 
the  prophet,  saying,  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  son" 
One  does  not  see  why  Bishop  Chandlers  account  of  this 
may  not  be  admitted  till  some  new  discovery  shall  be  made. 
This  is  a  most  eminent  instance  of  that  proverbial  expression 
for  deliverance  from  danger  by  the  providence  of  Jehovah — 
delivering  out  of  Egypt.  No  wonder  the  Jews  should  call 
all  great  deliverances  deliverances  out  of  Egypt ;  and  this 
was  such,  effected  by  the  same  divine  power,  both  in  the 
literal  and  proverbial  sense.  Some  national  deliverances  might 
be  forgotten,  at  least  by  the  lower  people ;  but  the  feast  of  the 
passover  would  make  the  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage 
fresh  in  every  one's  memory.  The  passages  relating  to  re 
demption  from  Egyptian  bondage  are  well  reckoned  up  by 
Bishop  Chandler  :  the  reference  here  may  either  be  general, 
or  to  Hosea  xi.  1,  in  particular.  Yet  it  may  be  best  to  refer 
to  Deut.  xxviii.  68.  Jer.  xi.iv.  12.  Hosea  viii.  13.  and  ix.  3. — 
as  only  a  number  of  expressions  can  familiarise  the  pro 
verb1.  So  that  the  meaning  of  "  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called 
my  son"  might  be  something  of  this  kind.  What  a  curious  262 
correspondence  and  analogy  between  Israel  the  son  of  God 
and  Messiah  the  Son  of  God  !  How  affecting  must  be  the 
proverbial  expressions  of  calling  out  of  Egypt,  and  sending 
into  Egypt,  when  that  analogy  appears !  When  the  two 
similar  events  are  completed  they  reflect  light  upon  each  other, 
and  give  each  other  new  importance. 

In  Matt,  ii.,  at  the  end,  are  these  words — "  And  he  (Jo 
seph)  came  and  dwelt  in  a  city  called  Nazareth  ;  that  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  He  shall  be 
called  a  Nazarene"  Now  it  does  not  appear  at  this  time 
that  there  is  any  such  saying  in  any  of  the  prophets.  The 
marginal  references  in  our  English  Bible  point  out  two  places, 
in  one  of  which  Samson,  in  the  other  Samuel,  are  said  to 
be  Nazarites.  Macknight  (page  43)  makes  Nazarene  to  mean 
"despised,  rejected;"  but  I  will  mention  Bishop  Chandler's 
solution.  He  is  not  content  with  the  solution,  that  the  ex 
pression,  "  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene,"  may  have  been 

1  Reference  should  also  be  made  to  i  xi.  1,  answers  in  this  respect.  See  also 
texts,  where  Israel  (which  was  brought  Exod.  iv.  22,  23.  Deut.  xiv.  1.  Jer. 
out  of  Egypt)  is  called  God's  Son.  Ilos.  '  xxxi.  9.  Rom.  ix.  4. 


I.  xvii.  19.]  PROPHECIES.  187 

lost  out  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  of  the  prophets  ;  because  the 
Jews  had  said,  "  Search  and  look,  for  out  of  Galilee2  ariseth 
no  prophet,"  and  had  asked,  "  Can  there  any  good  thing 
come3  out  of  Nazareth  ?"  This  must  imply,  that  no  such 
prophecy  as  "  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene,"  was  then  com 
monly  known  to  the  Jews.  This  learned  writer  thinks 
that  St.  Matthew  might  refer  to  Isaiah  xi.  1,  which  all 
hold  to  be  a  prediction  of  the  Messiah :  "  There  shall  come 
forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  *W  shall  grow  out 
of  his  roots."  T:^  signifies  either  a  branch  (or  flower),  or  the 
town  Nazareth,  which  was  the  flower  of  the  country,  a  very 
beautiful  and  pleasant  place :  the  name  of  the  town  may  also 
denote  an  inhabitant  of  it,  as  Moab  signifies  the  Moabites,  Phi- 
listia  the  Philistines,  &c.  Hence  Isaiah  might  mean  by  1!O 
both  that  a  branch  or  flower  would  come  of  the  stem  of  Jesse, 
and  that  the  person  so  called  might  be  a  Nazarene.  It  should 
also  be  remarked  that  this  "W  is  not  the  word  commonly 
made  use  of,  when  it  is  foretold  that  the  Messiah  shall  be  a 
branch  of  the  root  of  Jesse ;  HQ^  is  the  common  word.  This 
will  seem  forced,  and  it  should  only  be  adopted  as  a  probable 
solution  ;  but  it  will  appear  less  forced  to  any  one  who  con 
siders  the  nature  of  prophetic  language,  and  particularly  to 
any  one  who  considers  Hosea  i.  4,  5,  with  Bishop  Chandler's 
explanation.  Possibly  any  Hebrew  copy,  or  Hebrew  transla 
tion  (see  chapter  vi.  section  2,  of  this  book)  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel  might  here  have  the  very  Hebrew  words  of  Isaiah  xi.  1. 
How  new  such  introduction  of  them  would  appear  we  cannot 
certainly  determine.  That  author  mentions  another  passage 
which  seems  entirely  parallel  to  Isaiah  xi.  1,  in  his  way  of 
conceiving  it :  that  is,  Daniel  v.  28  :  "  PERES  ;  thy  kingdom 
is  divided,  and  given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians"  D"l£3,  in 
Hebrew,  signifies  both  to  divide,  and  Persia:  and,  in  the 
hand-writing  on  the  wall,  had  two  meanings,  as  *"I¥J  is  sup 
posed  to  have  in  Isaiah  xi.  1.  This  authentic  interpretation 
made  by  Daniel,  greatly  confirms  the  fallible  interpretation  of 
Bishop  Chandler1. 

Of  the   allegoric  method   of  quoting,  Gal.  iv.    21,   &c.    is 
a  remarkable  instance.      St.  Paul   does  not  pretend  that  it  is 

2  John  vii.  52.  a  john  ie  40  ,  iv  sect<  L  (p>  225,  in  my  Chandler,  but 

4  The   instances  in  Chandler,    about  i  there  is  a  false  print  from  p.  213,  for  223, 

Anios's  basket  of  flowers,  &c.  are  very  j  which    runs    through    the    rest    of   the 

apt,  and  come  well  from  a  Jew.    Chap.  j  book.) 


PROPHECIES. 


[I.  xvii. 


more  than  an  allegory,  a  Jewish  mode  of  persuasion,  used  I. 
when  more  simple  methods  seemed  to  fail  of  success;  in  en 
forcing  particular  points  of  Christian  doctrine;  for  it  is 
always  to  be  remembered  that  the  persons  addressed  are 
already  Christians,  made  such  by  regular  proofs.  This  par-  264 
ticular  allegory  was  addressed  to  those  Christians  who  in  their 
attachment  to  the  law  of  Moses  ran  into  excess — to  those  who 
desired  to  be  under  the  bondage  of  the  law,  when  they  might 
enjoy  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel.  And  must  it  not  be  really 
persuasive  to  such  persons  ?  as  lovers  of  their  country,  and 
as  lovers  of  their  religion  ?  However,  it  is  said  to  have  been 
founded  on  an  ulold  Jewish  notion,  that  Ishmael  should 
pierce  Isaac  with  an  arrow;"  which  would  make  it  more 
readily  received. 

The  quotation  of  the  8th  Psalm,  2d  verse,  in  Matt.  xxi.  16, 
on  occasion  of  the  children  crying  "  Hosanna,"  &c.  is  so  harm 
less  that  it  will  not  be  suspected  of  fraud,  and  therefore  it  may 
illustrate  the  method  of  quoting.  And  the  same  may  be 
observed  of  2  Cor.  viii.  15,  about  the  manna.  Manna  is  also 
referred  to  in  John  vi.  51.  But  it  should  not  be  omitted  that 
the  Jews  had  a  notion  that  the  children"  were  to  make  accla 
mations  at  the  triumphal  entry  of  the  Messias,  according  to 
Psalm  viii.  2.  Allusions  made  in  this  manner  would  imply 
different  degrees  of  argument  at  different  times;  but  they 
would  always  have  some  effect  on  the  minds  of  the  candid 
part  of  the  Jews,  and  for  others  (besides  Jews)  they  were  not 

intended. 

I  must  not  produce  more  examples.  From  these  it 
will  appear  that,  without  some  knowledge  of  the  subjects 
of  types  and  quotations,  the  language  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  especially  that  used  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Paul,  265 
will  never  appear  natural  and  easy.  And  these  will  be  best 
understood  by  one  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  traditional 

notions. 

The  term  accommodation  is  used  on  this  subject.  I  believe 
it  means,  the  first  publishers  of  Christianity  accommodating 
the  facts  and  expressions  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  habitual 
notions  of  the  Jews  with  whom  they  conversed. 


1  Allix's  Judgment  of  the  Jews,  p.  l>2. 
See  Acts  viii.  1,  and  other  places,  that 
the  Jews  did  persecute  the  Christians. 
St.  Paul's  behaviour  before  conversion 


shews  the  same.     And  Lardner,  vol.  i. 
p.  104.     By  St.  Paul's  allegory,  \heJews 
become  Ishmacl,  and  Christians  Isaac. 
2  Allix,  p.  03. 


I.  xvii.  20.]  riioi'HKciEs.  189 

I  This  accommodation  does  not  seem  to  excuse  us  from 

reasoning  accurately  and  sincerely;  it  does  not  justify  our 
urging  that3  as  truth  which  we  think  to  be  falsehood.  It 
does  not  appear  to  me  that  Christ  or  his  Apostles  ever  did 
this,  strictly  speaking;  or  that  their  eloquence  or  persuasion 
ever  was  less  regular  than  the  argument um  ad  hominem:  if 
any  harm  arises  from  that,  it  must  be  imputed  to  those  who 
make  the  application. 

Mr.  Locke's  account  of  the  argumentum  ad  hominem, 
though  just,  seems  to  have  occasioned  its  being  thought  less 
valid1  and  less  useful  than  it  is.  If  the  nature  of  it  is  not 
mistaken,  if  it  is  not  taken  for  an  argumentum  ad  judicium, 
it  may,  in  its  own  department,  answer  many  good  purposes. 
Men  are  particularly  attentive  to  any  reasoning  upon  their 
own  principles ;  and  when  they  are  convinced  of  their  own 
inconsistency  (which  they  are  by  the  argumentum  ad  homi 
nem),  they  grow  humble  and  reasonable,  attentive  to  truth, 
and  willing  to  admit  it.  The  arguing  of  which  we  -are  speak 
ing  in  quotation  from,  or  allusion  to,  the  Old  Testament,  is 
266  generally  of  the  nature  of  the  argumentum  ad  hominem,  if 
not  always. 

In  the  year  1782,  Dr.  Randolph  of  Oxford,  then  Marga 
ret  Professor5,  published  a  large  quarto  pamphlet  containing 
a  complete  collection  of  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
to  be  found  in  the  New  :  the  page  divided  into  three  columns  : 
one  containing  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament ;  another  the 
Greek  of  the  LXX;  the  third  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  :  with  notes,  &c.  at  the  end. 

20.  We  are  now  to  observe  that  miracles  and  prophecies 
are  suited  to  different  times  and  circumstances;  and  that  they 
do  not  weaken,  but  mutually  confirm,  each  other's  testimony. 
"  Miracles,"  says  Bishop  Newton,  "  may  be  said  to  have  been 
the  great  proofs  of  revelation  to  the  first  ages,  who  saw  them 
performed ;  prophecies  may  be  said  to  be  the  great  proofs 
of  revelation  to  the  last  ao;es(i,  who  see  them  fulfilled."  The 

O  " 

same  thing  is  said  more  particularly,  and  with  more  argument, 

3  Dr.  Powell's  Charges,  p.  305.     Dr.  j  life,  not  in  theory  or  speculation  ?    Bp. 
Powell  is  not  so  satisfactory,  to  my  judg-  Pearson  says,  "which  I  shall  not  need 
ment,  in  this  passage  as  in  others.  |  here  to  prove,  because  those  against  whom 

4  Qu.     In  all  actual  arguing,  are  not  |  I   bring   this   argument,  deny   it   not.'* 
you  generally  endeavouring  to  convince  j  Creed,  "  His  only  Son." 

some  person  whom  you  address  ?  espe-  r>  Regius  Professor  in  17153. 

cially  when  you  are  in  the  commerce  of  |       <;  Up.  Newton,  Introd.  p.  7- 


190  PROPHECIES.  [I.  xvii.  20. 

by  Bishop  Ilallifax1.  And  Bishop  Hurd,  speaking  of  double  I. 
prophecies,  adds  a  new  idea  :  "  The  events  which  "  "  both  pro 
phetic  schemes  point  out  are  so  distributed  through  all  time, 
as  to  furnish  successively,  to  the  several  ages  of  the  world,  the 
im-ans  of  a  fn-sh  and  fiti.lt  #ro  •//:•/>/.£•  conviction."  The  convic 
tion  grown,  because  the  force  of  old  prophecies,  when  completed, 
continues  always  undiminished,  and  every  new  completion 
adds  to  the  mass  of  evidence  ;  it  grows  /ant,  because  each 
new  completion  illustrates  the  whole  plan. 

That  no  part  of  the  evidence  of  prophecy  should  be  /o.v/, 
i'-  f^n  at.  pnrpry-.f  of  Ui  -.hop  \Yarhn  r  t.on\  Lecture  founded 
at  Lincoln's  Inn,  which  has  given  rise  to  so  many  masterly  26'7 
discourses.  It  is  intended  to  point  out  the  completion  of  the 
prophecies  relating  to  the  Christian  Church,  particularly  those 
which  seem  to  describe  what  is  called  '*  the  apostany'*  of  Papal 
Rome." 

If  miracles  and  prophecy  are  intended  for  different  Mamma 

11  J 

and  occasions,  it  should  seem  as  if  there  could  be  no  rivals/tip 
between  them  ;  yet  some  writers  seem  to  have  endeavoured  to 
create  one.  This  has  been  founded  chiefly  on  2  Pet.  i.  1.9, 
where  the  Apostle  says,  after  speaking  of  the  miraculous  ap 
pearance  of  Christ  at  his  transfiguration^  "  we  have  also  a 
more  aure  word  of  prophecy :"  hence,  as  some  have  thought,  it 
appears,  that  prophecy  is  more  convincing  than  miraclea :  but 
Dr.  ('oo/ce'  has  shewn,  that  St.  Peter  sets  up  no  competition 
between  them,  but  only  says,  that  the  prophecies  concerning 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  are  confirmed  (or  made  more  sure) 
by  the  miracle  of  his  transfiguration.  The  passage,  according 
to  Dr.  Cookers  interpretation,  admits  of  some  such  paraphrase 
as  this:  'though  you  are  completely  established  in  your  new 
religion,  yet  you  must  not  think  yourselves  wholly  free  from 
danger ;  you  are  exposed  to  trouble  and  persecution,  and  to 
the  sarcastic  scoff's  of  infidels^  who  tauntingly  demand,  why 
does  not  Christ  come  a  second  time,  according  to  the  expecta 
tion  of  the  faithful?  Let  them  not  undermine  your  faith  by 
either  sneers  or  arguments :  think  seriously  of  the  assurance 
you  have  from  prophecy  of  his  second  coming;  this  will  be 
your  best  stay,  and  firmest  support.  They  tell  you  that 

1  lip.   Ilallifax,  Dine.  i.  p.  4,  /i,  &c.    |    Prophecy. 
See  alHO  Dp.  Hurd,  pp.  1 1ft  and  102.   Arid 


I'utler'h  Analogy,  p.  2<>l. 

*  Kec  an  extract  from  a  deed  of  trimt 
prefixed   to   lip.    Hurd'ft   J>iHcour»th  on 


3  Hee  before,  »cct.  1/i.  Dean  of  Kly, 
arid  l'rovo«t  of  King'*  College,  in  a  Vihi- 
tation  Scrrrum  preached  at  JJeacori»ficld 
in  1 7/>0,  against  J)r.  Middlcton. 


I.  xvii.  'Ji-1  I'uorin en  s.  191 

I.  I  deceive  von  with  ctniHfngli/  drrisrd  /<//>/< 'N:  no;  my  ,sr//.sr.v 
'JO'S  did  not  deceive  mo;  the  second  coming  of  Christ  cannot  seem 
doubt  fill  to  HH\  who  was  an  eye-witness  of  that  glorious  ami 
majestic  form  in  which  lie  will  probably  appear.  I  -aw  him 
/nniti/itfiirt'<L  JUK!  heard  the  voice  of  his  hea\enly  leather, 
saying,  This  is  mv  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  : 
such  a  sij;-ht  must  needs  «nve  nir  very  lively  conceptions  of 
(1hrisfs  second  coming  and  must  add  stability  and  firmness  to 
my  confidence  in  prophecy.  To  that  lot  me  exhort  von  to 
attend  as  to  a  li^ht  sinning  amidst  the  darkness  of  your  present 
io-noranec,  till  the  day  of  knowledge  dawn,  and  the  morning- 
star  arise  to  cheer  your  hearts  with  the  rays  of  assurance  and 
conviction." 

-1.  Upon  the  whole,  the  force  of  the  argument  from 
pivpheoy  is  wonderfully  i^rcat.  To  conceive  this,  we  must 
look  back  to  the  very  I  H'^i  lining  of  time,  and  watch  all  the 
prophecies  which  have  been  delivered  ;  faint  and  indefinite,  if 
verv  distant  from  the  completion-  more  distinct,  if  nearer  to 

it:  numerous,  circumstantial]  describing  events  out  of  the  reach 

of  conjecture  bv  analogy,   and   events   Seemingly    incompatible 
with  each  other:    many  of  these  prophecies  fulfilled  primarily 
in  one  event,   and,  after  many  a«;es,   in  other  events  more  im 
portant    and    moii'     spiritual:     many    of  them    not    understood 
for   a   while,    but    at    last    roivivinj;-   an    explanation    by    rrcn/t>\ 
which  random-  could  not  deny  to  be  an  interpretation  ;  yet  not 
solved    by    facts  concerning  people  of  different    nations   at    ran 
dom,  but    conlined   chiefly    to  our  />ro/>/r,    or    to   other   nations 
as  connected  with   them,  and  to  our  /wr/w.sr  ;   continually   un 
folded,    not  exactly  according   to  man's   preconceptions,    vet    so 
as  to  excite  admiration  and  applause-  upon  reflection.       This  of 
jxtsf  prophecies.       Those  prrsrnf  or  fiultsisfin^  are  ahxays  ob 
scure  enough   to  exercise  the-  human   faculties,  intellectual  and 
moral,  yet  able  to  be  a  lantern  unto  our  feet,  and  a  lio-ht   unto 
our    paths    "in    a    i!<irk    pfoo*,**   .»;ral  ifyino-,    and    at    the    same 
time  r-xcitinj;-  expectation  ;   rising-  in  ;';reati\i-ss  and  maiMiilieemv, 
till,   as  we  look    farther  and    farther  into  futuriu,   our   comep 
tions    are    lost     in    the    immensity    of  the    Dixinc    wisdom    aiul 

knowledm. 

» ^ 

The  son  of  Sirach,  a  learned  and  worthy  Jew,  describing 
the  character  which  we  wish  to  recommend1,  sa\s,  "lie  that 
;  IVOth  his  mind  to  the-  law  of  the  most  llio-h,  and  is 

'    Kivlrsiastini-;  \\\i\.  I — II. 


192  PROPAGATION    OF     CHRISTIANITY'.       [I.  Xviii.  1,  2. 

in  the  meditation  thereof,  will  seek  out  the  wisdom  of  all  the 
ancient  writers,  and  will  be  occupied  in  prophecies.  He  will 
keep  the  sayings  of  the  renowned  men  ;  and  where  subtile 
parables  are,  he  will  be  there  also.  He  will  seek  out  the 
secrets  of  grave  sentences,  and  be  conversant  in  dark  para 
bles." 


CHAPTER    XVIII.  270 

OF    THE     FIRST     PROPAGATION    OF    THE     CHRISTIAN     RELIGION. 

1.  WE  have  now  considered  every  thing  contained  in  our 
Scriptures,    from    which    we    derive   any   argument    of  their 
authenticity.      We  come  next,  according  to  our  plan,  to  con 
template  their  gradual  reception  in  the  world,  and  to  see  what 
conclusions  are  to  be  drawn  from  it ; — using  the  precautions 
before  mentioned,  that  we  do  not  trust  too  implicitly  to  the 
partial  accounts  of  friends,  nor  turn  with  disgust  from  the  un 
favourable  representations  of  enemies. 

If  we  wished  to  make  a  regular  transition  from  prophecy 
to  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  we  need  not  be  at  a  loss. 
St.  Matthew  gives  us1  a  beautiful  prophetic  parable,  predictive 
of  that  great  and  complicated  event  :  a  parable  which  must 
have  been  published  to  the  world  long  before  the  prophecy 
contained  in  it  was  completed-;  and  in  such  plain  terms  as 
could  have  no  other  signification  given  them,  in  case  the  grain 
of  mustard-seed  had  not  grown  up  as  was  foretold  :  for  "  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven"  was  as  well  understood  to  mean  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  or  the  dispensation  of  Christ,  as  the 
Roman  empire  was  known  to  mean  the  empire  of  Ccesar'\ 

2.  A  short  account  of  the  subject  before  us  is  this : — A 
person,   in  an  humble  rank  of  life,  had  taught  men  religion,  271 
"  as   one  having   authority,"   and   had   pretended   to   be   the 
expected   Messiah ;   but  he   was  apprehended  and  tried,  and 
put  to  death  in  a  servile  and  ignominious  manner.      His  fol 
lowers  had  entertained,  during  his  life-time,  ambitious  hopes 

of  advancement  in  his  supposed  kingdom  ;  but,  when  he  was 
opposed,  one  betrayed  him,  another,  though  of  a  most  zealous 

1  Matt.  xiii.  31,  32.      9  Matt.  xiii.  31.   |  describing  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel: 
::  There  are  other  prophetic  parables   !   Matt.  xxii.  1 — 6.     Matt.  xiii.  44 — 415. 


I.  XVlii.  3.]          PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  193 

I.  temper,  denied  him,  and  "all  forsook  him  and  fled:"  and, 
had  they  been  perfectly  faithful,  they  had  neither  riches, 
power,  rank  nor  wisdom,  nor  any  spirit  of  fanaticism,  to  take 
up  the  succession;  nor  any  views,  after  the  death  of  their 
Lord,  of  any  worldly  advantages.  Let  us  put  ourselves  in 
their  place,  or  in  that  of  Jews  or  heathens : — what  was  to  be 
expected  ?  Why,  considering  the  obscurity,  and  poverty,  and 
simplicity  of  the  first  Christian  teachers,  and  how  they  were 
opposed,  not  only  by  the  heathens  whose  religion  they  de 
spised,  but  by  the  Jews  whose  religion  they  honoured  as 
divine  ;  considering  that  all  those  who  were  distinguished  for 
wisdom  affected  to  treat  them  with  contempt ;  it  was  to  be 
expected  that  the  Christian  religion  would  die  away,  and  be 
totally  lost  and  forgotten.  This  was  the  case  on  other  similar 
occasions1;  but  here  the  contrary  happened.  There  was  a 
pause  of  some  days  between  the  time  of  the  final  departure  of 
this  Leader,  and  the  famous  day  on  which  his  teachers  pro 
fessed  to  receive  their  commission  ;  but,  after  that,  the  new 
religion  began  to  spread;  it  spread  gradually,  but  what  may 
be  called  rapidly  and  irresistibly,  on  every  side:  though  it 
had  to  overcome  men's  prejudices,  and  to  make  them  sacrifice 
their  interests ;  though  it  required  the  most  inveterate  habits  to 
be  conquered,  habits  corporeal,  intellectual,  and  moral;  though 
272  it  sometimes  demanded  a  degree  of  resolution  and  fortitude 
beyond  all  probable  expectation,  and  though  it  frequently 
exposed  men  to  death  itself. 

3.  What  can  be  thought  of  such  an  event  as  this  ?  how 
can  it  be  accounted  for  ?  There  have  been  three  methods  of 
accounting  for  it,  and  of  applying  it,  in  the  way  of  argument, 
to  the  proof  of  a  Divine  superintendence  over  the  interests  of 
Christianity. 

Some  Christians  content  themselves  with  considering  the 
Gospel-history  as  the  cause,  and  this  progress  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  as  the  effect.  If  the  things  related  in  the  Gospel- 
history  were  really  done,  say  they,  such  an  effect  might  be 
produced ;  but  the  effect  is  utterly  unaccountable  if  we  may 
not  ascribe  it  to  such  a  cause.  That  is,  the  first  propagation  of 
Christianity  proves  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  history:  no  such 
effect  could  have  followed  from  fiction  or  imposture. 

But  there  are  some  who  think  something  more  is  wanting 
to  produce  phenomena  so  very  extraordinary  ;  something  more 
4  See  Salisbury's  Bullet,  p.  222.    Six  instances,  from  Josephus. 

VOL.  I.  13 


19  4«  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.      [I.  Xviii.  4,  5. 

than  even  the  wonders  related  in  the  Gospels,  supposing  the  I. 
accounts  of  them  indisputable.  They  think,  that  not  only  re 
lations  of  past  miracles  must  have  been  wanted,  to  accomplish 
such  ends,  but,  when  the  evidence  of  such  miracles  became 
difficult  to  examine  thoroughly,  by  distance  of  place,  and 
other  circumstances,  a  continuation  of  miracles  must  have 
been  requisite,  during  the  whole  time  that  Christianity  re 
mained  unprotected  by  the  civil  power.  When  therefore  it  is 
said  that  miraculous  powers  did  subsist  in  the  Church  for 
some  centuries,  they  think  the  thing  probable,  and  are  inclined 
to  believe  that  many  of  the  miracles  pretended  to  by  the 
ancient  Christians  were  really  performed. 

A  third  set  of  men  go  farther  still,  and  hold  that  the  273 
phenomena  of  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  were  so  great 
and  wonderful,  that  not  even  continued  miracles  were  sufficient 
to  account  for  them,  unless  some  supernatural  influence  was 
used  immediately  upon  the  hearts  of  the  converts.  So  long  as 
the  reason  of  those  to  whom  the  Gospel  was  preached  was 
clouded  by  error,  and  obstructed  by  prejudice,  whilst  their 
hearts  were  debased  and  enslaved  by  mean  and  worldly  pas 
sions,  no  preaching,  however  confirmed  even  by  miraculous 
evidence,  could  have  had  its  due  effect1.  Still  the  internal 
influence  of  heaven  on  the  heart  would  have  been  wanted. 

4.  Dr.  Powell  has  well  observed,  that  it  matters  not  much 
which   of  these  suppositions   is   adopted :   from   any   of  them 
it  follows  that  the  Christian  religion  is  divine.      The  first  is 
the  most  simple,  though  all  three  might  be  admitted,  or  any 
one  or  two :  indeed,  the  two  latter  imply  the  first.     The  nar 
rations  of  the  Gospel-miracles  might  be  true,  and   yet  there 
might  be  some  miraculous  power  continued  in  the  Church  for 
three    centuries;   and   the    converts  might  also  be   influenced 
from  above,   or  internal   influence   might  have  place  without 
continued   miracles.     The   suppositions   shew  one  thing,   that 
the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  has  been  thought  truly  wonder 
ful  and  supernatural;   modes  of  accounting  for  it   are   marks 
of  admiration  at  least,  if  not  of  sound  judgment. 

5.  AVhat  has  been   said  already   may   in  some  sense  be 
called  an  account  of  the  propagation  of  Christianity ;  but  it 
is  a  matter  so  grand,  so  interesting,  so  important,  as  to  merit 
more  particular  attention — as  to  the  fact,  the  solution  of  that 
fact,  and  the  conclusions  which  may  be  drawn  from  it. 

1    .Matt.  xiii.  ft?!. 


I.  Xviii.  6\]          PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  195 

I.  6.    As  to  the  fact  we  may  truly  say,  that,  if  we  could 

274  get  good  accounts  of  it,  such   as  would  give  us  distinct  and 
lively    ideas,    it   would   be   the  most  interesting   of  subjects ; 
equally  improving  to  the  Christian  and  the  scholar ;  though 
nothing  less  than  being  present  at  the  different  scenes  would 
give  us  a  perfect  conception.      We  should  see  the  magnificence 
of  the  heathen  temples,  the  fine  workmanship  of  the  statues ; 
the  priests,  the  victims,  superbly  adorned ;  the  attendant  youths 
of  both  sexes,  blooming  with  beauty,  performing  all  ceremonies 
with  gracefulness,  heightened  by  every  ornament ;  the  magis 
trates  with  insignia ;  the  religious  feasts,  dances,  illuminations. 
We  should  hear  the  concerts  of  voices  and  instruments ;   we 
should  be  surrounded  by  the  perfumes ;  we  should  observe  how 
every  part  of  religion  was  contrived  to  allure  and  captivate ; 
we  should  see  how  much  all  men  were  attached  to  it,  not  only 
of  the  lower  ranks,  but  the  most  improved  and  the  best  in 
formed;  for  we,  in  our  improved  times,  are  apt  to  think  Jupiter, 
Apollo,  and  Venus,  so  absurd  as  deities,  that  we  have  no  idea 
or   feeling  of  the  attachment  of  the  heathens  to  their  gods2. 
When  we  had  got  some  idea  of  the  heathen  religion,  we  should 
go  to  a  meeting  of  ihejirst  Christians;  plain  simple,  and  in 
commodious — concealed   in  some   degree,   under  alarms  from 
danger  of  persecution  :  one  such  meeting  we  should  see  at  least 
in  every  century,  till  the  end  of  the  fourth.      We  should  hear 
the  heathens  conversing  about  the  Christians  in  private  life, 

275  and  deliberating  about  them  in  councils  of  state;   we  should 
attend  the  tribunals  of  the  heathen  magistrates,  and  hear  the 
early   Christians  accused,  defended,  condemned ;   listen  to  the 
topics  made  use  of  in  accusing  and  defending :   we  should  at 
tend  the  convicts  to  the  stake  or  the  cross,  see  their  mild  for 
titude,   their  heroic   benevolence ;   or  first,   we  should  attend 
them  to  prison,  and  see  their  fellow-Christians  crowding  about 
them,  giving  up  every  sort  of  convenience,  in  order  to  afford 
them  relief  and  support  in  their  confinement.     We  should  enter 
into    the  domestic  retirements   of  those   families   which    were 
wholly   converted,   and    see    their    amiable    virtues    and   their 
animated  piety  ;   or  of  those  which  were  become  Christians  in 
part,  and  see  the  conflicts  between  religious  and  filial  duty — 


-  Libanius  Orat.  pro  Templis  might 
be  consulted,  Lard.  vol.  vin.  440,  &c., 
and  the  petition  to  restore  the  Altar  of 


ner's  account  of  Zosimus — this  again  in 
sect.  18.  And,  to  the  same  pur  pose,  B.  I. 
Chap.  xii.  sect.  Ifi. 


Victory,  vol.  ix.  p.  13f>,  &c.    And  Lard- 

1. ' 


196  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  [I.  XVlti.  ?• 

between  Christian  devotion  and  fraternal  affection.  We  should  I. 
see  the  zealous  labours  of  the  clergy,  their  minds  enflamed 
with  the  greatness,  the  novelty,  the  danger  of  their  situation  ; 
free  from  worldly  views  of  gain,  or  rank,  or  power ;  wholly 
fixed  upon  heaven  and  the  means  of  attaining  it — instructing, 
persuading,  exhorting,  convincing. 

And  it  may  here  be  permitted  to  observe,  by  the  way,  that 
whoever  carries  on  this  train  of  thought,  must  perceive  that 
any  one  who  was  master  of  the  history  and  antiquities  of  the 
early  ages  of  Christianity,  might  form  fables,  /mvOot,  out  of 
them,  for  epic  or  dramatic  compositions,  which  would  be  ex 
tremely  interesting,  affecting,  and  improving. 

7.  The  intent  of  seeing  all  the  things  just  now  mentioned 
would  be,  to  get  as  full  a  conception  as  possible  of  what  those 
persons  had  to  give  up  who  determined  to  embrace  Chris 
tianity  ;  but  seeing  is  now  out  of  our  power,  we  must  come 
as  near  it  as  we  can  by  reading.  The  books  which  it  would 
be  natural  to  consult  are  Jewish,  Heathen,  and  Christian ;  but 
I  will  not  dwell  on  what  the  Jews  had  to  give  up  in  order  to  276* 
become  Christians — their  temple,  their  solemn  rites,  their  dis 
tinction  from  the  rest  of  mankind;  (though  it  was  to  them  an 
important  and  trying  sacrifice ;)  because  it  is  better  known  to 
those  who  are  accustomed  to  the  reading  of  the  Old  Testament 
than  what  we  have  now  been  describing ;  but  every  one  should 
reflect  upon  it,  enough  to  be  sensible  that  the  Christian  reli 
gion  must  be  "  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,"  as  well  as 
"  unto  the  Greeks  foolishness." 

We  shall  keep  therefore  the  Gentiles  chiefly  in  our  view. 
But  how  is  any  knowledge  of  them  to  be  got  which  shall  sup 
ply  the  place  of  actual  intercourse  ?  are  all  the  authors,  hea 
then  and  Christian,  to  be  read,  who  wrote  between  the  death 
of  Christ  and  the  full  establishment  of  Christianity  ?  are  the 
Christians  sufficiently  impartial  ?  are  they  not  too  zealous  and 
superstitious  ?  and,  as  to  the  heathen  writers,  how  little  do 
they  say  about  Christianity  ?  We  may  read  Tacitus  and 
Suetonius,  Pliny  and  Dion  Cassius,  and  find  very  little  to 
our  purpose  in  any  of  them :  even  Josephus  will  only  involve 
us  in  disputes  on  the  question,  whether  he  has  said  any  thing 
whatsoever  about  Christianity1.  If  the  student  is  desirous 
to  get  the  information  here  mentioned,  and  yet  thinks  himself 
unable,  it  may  be  acceptable  to  him  to  find  that  a  collection 
1  Before  in  Chap,  xiv.  sect.  12. 


I.  Xviii.  8,  9.]      PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  197 

I.  has  been  made,  by  Dr.  Lardner*,  of  all  the  passages  in  hea 
then  (and  indeed  in  Jewish)  authors  which  have  any  relation 
to  Christianity ;  and  that  all  helps  have  been  given  by  him  for 
the  right  understanding  of  those  passages  ;  such  as  the  lives  and 
characters  of  the  several  authors,  with  their  connexions,  views, 
and  sentiments. 

If  reading  this  work  were  found  too  much,  the   student 

277  might  consult  Professor  Bullet's  short  history  and  discourse, 
with  Mr.   Salisbury's   translation    and    notes.      Dr.    PowelFs 
10th  and  llth  Discourses  should  not  be  passed  over:   but  if  he 
reads  these  shorter   works  only,  he  would  do  well  to  consult 
Lardner  for  the  times  and  characters  of  the  authors  referred 
to  in  them. 

We  would  wish  to  make  use  of  all  authors;  but  the  testi 
monies  of  Christians  would  be  undervalued,  and  bring  on  dis 
putes;  we  therefore  wave  them  as  much  as  possible.  Nay,  we 
ourselves  lament  the  instances  of  indiscreet  zeal  which  we  meet 
with  in  some  ancient  Christians,  and  of  a  desire  to  persuade  so 
strong  as  to  interfere  with  truth  and  just  reasoning.  As  the 
injudicious  parent  persuades  his  child  to  what  is  right,  and 
deters  him  from  what  is  wrong,  by  every  foolish  and  super 
stitious  argument,  so,  it  is  to  be  feared,  weak  Christians  have 
sometimes  endeavoured  to  persuade  and  deter  those  whom  they 
wished  to  convert,  or  to  preserve  from  heresy ;  and  a  few 
instances  of  this  sort  must  hurt  a  writer's  credit  almost  irre 
trievably.  Yet,  with  caution,  we  may  draw  very  good  informa 
tion  from  Christian  writers;  and  all  must  allow  that  they  are 
to  be  attended  to,  when  they  give  accounts  of  events  in  one 
country  like  those  which  heathen  writers  give  of  events  in 
another  ;  or  when  they  copy  Edicts,  &c. 

8.  Some  heathen  writers  have  written  against  Christianity, 
others  have  only  mentioned  it  occasionally.  We  have  lamented3 
the  loss  of  the  works  of  the  former,  whether  owing  to  violence, 
or  mere  contempt  and  neglect ;  it  is  from  the  latter  that  we 
chiefly  take  our  materials  for  an  history  of  the  propagation  of 
the  Gospel.  But  for  making  a  right  use  of  these  and  others, 
some  preparatory  considerations  are  wanted. 

278  9.    First,  we  may  observe,  that  Christians  were  not  always 
called   by  that    name.     At   first,   Jews  and  Christians  were 
confounded  together,  or  very   little  difference  made   between 

2  This  work  was  mentioned  before,  Chap.  xii.  sect.  9. 

3  B.  I.  Chap.  xii.  sect.  17. 


198  I'llOrAGA'i'ION    OF    CHRIST JAN1TY.         [I.  XVUl.  10, 

them  :  indeed,  to  neglect  distinguishing  where  two  things  are  I. 
like  each  other,  and  very  unlike  all  other  things  with  which 
you  are  apt  to  compare  them,  is  very  natural.  The  Jews  and 
Christians  were  like  each  other  in  worshipping  one  invisible 
God,  and  in  holding  no  fellowship  or  communion  in  worship 
with  any  species  of  idolaters ;  and  in  this  they  were  unlike 
all  the  heathen  world1.  Both  Jews  and  Christians  came  to 
Rome  (and  other  places)  from  Judea,  and  both  acknowledged 
the  divine  authority  of  the  religion  of  Moses.  The  name  of 
Christians  was  first  given  to  the  new  sect  at  Antioch,  before 
the  publication  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  but  both  before 
and  after  that  time  they  were  distinguished  by  several  other 
names.  These  we  should  be  aware  of,  otherwise  we  might 
read  a  passage  in  an  heathen  author  relating  to  Christians,  and 
imagine  it  related  to  some  other  persons.  When  we  read  of 
Galileans,  or  Nazarenes,  we  might  suspect  Christians  to  be 
meant ;  but  not  so  perhaps  when  we  read  of  atheists,  of  a 
rabble,  of  barbarian  temerity,  of  a  novelty,  of  a  foreign  super 
stition,  of  persons  burning  like  a  stake,  having  the  tunica 
molesta,  being  magical,  doing  things  contrary  to  the  laws,  or 
when  we  read  of  Judaism,  impiety,  &c.  However,  about  the 
year  160  we  are  told2  that  most  prose  writers  called  the  new 
sect  by  the  name  which  they  have  at  present — Christians; 
though  some  thought  it  came  from  xprja-ros,  good,  not  from 
Xpi(Jl)>  to  anoint. 

10.  As  these  names  are  many  of  them  opprobrious,  and 
as  it  seems  likely  that  they  have  done  great  harm  to  Christi 
anity,  being  found  in  writers  of  great  eminence,  and  trans 
planted  into  the  works  of  infidels,  it  may  be  proper  to  give  279 
the  account  of  them  which  is  to  be  found  in  Dr.  PowelPs  llth 
Discourse.  Christians  have  been  called  superstitious,  and  yet 
they  have  been  called  atheists.  When  particulars  come  to  be 
examined,  the  superstition  appears  to  be  professing  a  religion 
very  different  from  that  of  their  ancestors ;  and  the  atheism, 
despising  all  the  heathen  gods,  and  holding  no  communion 
with  their  worshippers,  as  such3.  Christians  have  been  called 
low,  and  illiterate,  and  mean,  and  yet  they  have  been  called 

1  Dr.  Powell,  p.  KM.        -  Lardner.  ness  and  credulity  is  found  to  consist  in 

;t  Christians  have  been   called  weak,  believing  prophecies  and  miracles;  and 

flexible,  credulous;   and  yet  they  have  their  obstinacy  in  persisting  in  their  faith, 

been  called  obstinate,  and  punishable  for  in  spite  of  the  persuasions  of  friends,  and 

mere  obstinacy.    On  inquiry,  their  weak-  the  terrors  of  the  civil  power. 


I.  Xviii.  II.]       PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


199 


I.  wise,  versed  in  magic  and  necromancy.  On  examination,  their 
vulgarity  seems  to  have  been  nothing  more  than  plainness  and 
industry  in  useful  occupations;  their  powers  of  magic,  mira 
culous  powers.  The  charge  of  necromancy  might  originate  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  particularly  in  the  Apostles 
being  always  ready  to  lay  the  foundation  of  their  preaching  in 
the  resurrection  of  Christ4.  Lastly,  Christians  have  been 
called  lazy  and  indolent,  and  yet  they  have  been  called  restless 
and  busy.  Their  indolence  was  a  want  of  the  common  endea 
vours  to  get  money,  so  that  they  had  nothing  to  give  the  gods; 
their  restlessness,  a  great  assiduity  in  doing  good,  in  succouring 
their  distressed  brethren,  and  perhaps  in  converting  their  ac 
quaintance  to  Christianity. 

11.  It  seems  requisite,  for  a  right  understanding  of  de 
tached  passages  selected  from  heathen  authors,  to  have  a  just 
notion  of  heathen,  and  especially  Roman5  toleration.  Amongst 
280  idolaters,  each  nation  was  supposed  to  have  its  own  gods ;  and 
no  better  argument  was  expected  from  any  one  for  worshipping 
any  particular  gods,  than  that  they  were  the  gods  of  his  ances 
tors6.  St.  Paul  therefore  very  aptly,  when  addressing  himself 
to  a  Roman  governor,  pleads,  that  he  worshipped  the  God~  of 
his  fathers  .  .  .  The  Romans  conquered  many  nations,  but 
they  suffered  each  to  keep  its  own  8  religion  ;  and  even  in  the 
city  of  Rome,  when  a  great  number  of  foreigners  resided  there, 
a  great  number  of  different  deities  were  allowed.  Dion  Cas- 
sius9  makes  the  number  of  nations  who  had  each  its  own  gods 
six  hundred.  The  Romans,  accustomed  to  this,  thought 
that  Christians  ought  to  be  contented,  if  their  God  Jesus  was 
admitted  on  the  same  footing;  but,  though  the  Apostles  were 
remarkably  discreet  and  delicate  in  their  manner  of  publishing 
the  Gospel,  they  never  dissembled  the  truth ;  and,  in  after- 
times,  the  Christians  in  general  were  obliged  to  declare  posi 
tively  against  all  intercommunity  of  gods,  and  to  refuse  all 
kinds  of  respect  to  idols.  "  They  would  not  10 throw  a  little 
frankincense  upon  an  altar,  or  put  their  hand  to  their  lips, 
when  they  passed  by  a  temple."  When  "Pliny  said,  that 
Christians  were  punishable  for  their  obstinacy  about  such  mat- 


4  See  Acts  xvii.  18,32;  xxiii.  6;  xxiv. 
•21 ;  xxvi.  8,  &c. 

5  See  Divine  Legation,    Index — tole 
ration,  or  religion. 

6  Perhaps  Egypt  should  be  excepted 


from  those  who  allowed  all  to  worship 
their  own  gods.  7  Acts  xxiv.  14. 

8  SeeLardner's  Credib.  Part  I.  Book  i. 
Chap.  viii.  9  See  Powell,  p.  1;>I>. 

10  Powell,  p.  186.      u  Lib.  x.  Ep.  97. 


200  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.        [I.  XVlH.   12. 

ters,  whether  what  they  persisted  in  was  good  or  bad,  he  must    I. 
presuppose  that  modes  of  religious  worship  were  in  themselves 
indifferent. 

Mr.  Hume1  prefers  polytheism  to  theism,  and  of  course  to 
Christianity,  in  respect  of  toleration,  but,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
unjustly.  1.  The  Romans,  who,  I  suppose,  were  accounted  281 
as  tolerant  as  any  people,  seem  not  to  have  allowed,  in  theory, 
any  strange  gods  to  be  worshipped,  either  publickly  or  pri 
vately,  without  legal  2authority.  2.  They  were  tolerant  only 
in  trifles :  the  difference  between  one  species  of  idols  and 
another  was  not  important,  scarcely  more  so  than  different 
modes  of  courtesy  and  civility.  Christians  are  as  tolerant 
when  they  allow  the  omission  of  water-baptism.  Nay,  the 
Egyptians  were  confessedly  intolerant,  even  about  different 
species  of  idols,  or  brutes,  as  objects  of  worship.  3.  They 
could  not  be  really  tolerant  from  any  principle  of  duty,  because 
they  would  not  bear  any  reasoning  against  their  gods,  nor 
even  some  sorts  of  neglect  of  them.  They  would  determine 
in  what  degree  men  should  differ  from  them ;  they  would  not 
allow  men  to  profess  and  defend  their  belief  in  the  Unity  3  of 
God.  And  how  is  the  idea  of  heathen  toleration  to  be  made 
consistent  with  the  barbarous  persecutions  of  Christians  ?  4. 
Christians,  as  such,  are  not  intolerant.  The  Christian  emperors 
did,  in  early  times,  lay  more  restraints  upon  the  pagan  religion 
than  we  can  now  approve ;  and  some  professors  of  Christianity 
have  carried  persecution  to  a  length  which  we  detest ;  but,  as 
the  knowledge  of  Christianity  improves,  toleration  becomes 
more  understood  and  practised ;  which  could  not  be  if  Christi 
anity,  or  theism,  was  any  way  inconsistent  with  toleration. 
I  conceive  there  are  now  many  Christians  who  really  desire 
that  every  man  should  use  his  reason  and  form  his  opinions  282 
freely,  even  of  those  who  are  for  having  the  members  of  the 
same  religious  society  agree  in  some  things,  for  the  sake  of 
peace  and  unity,  or  who  are  afraid  of  trusting  men  of  very 
different  religious  tenets  with  great  civil  power  in  the  same 
government. 

12.    The  subject  of  toleration  naturally  leads  to  that  of 

1  Hume's  Nat.  Hist.  Rel.  sect.  9.  I  3  Lardner  says,  (Cred.  B.  I.  Chap.  viii. 

-  Separatim  nemo  habessit  deos ;  neve  I  sect.  7,)  that  the  supreme  God  might  be 

novos,  sed  ne  advenas,  nisi  publice  adsci-  j  worshipped  in  the  Roman  empire;  but 

tos,  privatim  colunto.  Cic.  de  Leg.  ii.  8,  i  did  not  that  mean  that  the  Jeics  might 

quoted  in  Lardner's Works,  vol.  i.  p.  190.  1  worship  the  God  of  the  Jews  ? 


I.  Xviii.   12.]        PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  201 

I.  the  persecutions  against  Christians,  before  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine  the  Great ;  of  which  we  should  have  some  idea,  in 
order  to  understand  the  progress  of  Christianity.  As  disputes 
have  drawn  this  subject  out  into  a  great  length,  we  must  be 
content  to  let  it  be  treated  by  others  as  a  separate  subject,  and 
only  treat  it  ourselves  in  a  summary  way. 

Several  writers  have  endeavoured  to  lessen  the  importance 
of  the  persecutions.  We  may  particularly  mention  Dr.  Tay 
lor4,  Mr.  Walpole5,  and  Mr.  Gibbon.  Even  Mosheim6  has 
controverted  the  common  opinion  that  they  were  ten  in  num 
ber.  Augustin~  has  given  a  short  account  of  ten,  and  so, 
I  think,  has  Sulpicius  Severus ;  and  Eusebius  has  reckoned 
eleven  ;  Dr.  Blair,  in  his  chronological  tables,  gives  ten8.  If  it 
be  asked,  what  opinion  I  should  recommend,  I  should  answer, 
that  I  am  inclined  to  agree  with  Lardner9,  who  follows  Euse 
bius  in  admitting  eleven.  I  would  observe,  at  the  same  time, 
that  some  historical  disputes  might  be  owing  to  the  persecu 
tions  having  been  called  general.  Instances  of  particular  per- 
283  secutions  might  be,  Nero's  from  Tacitus,  the  martyrs  of  Lyons, 
and  St.  Lucian's  martyrdom  under  Maximian,  from  Euse 
bius10.  I  believe  that  Christians  were  less  persecuted  by 
heathens  at  first11  than  is  generally  thought;  but,  if  we  go  to 
Diocletian's  persecution,  we  shall  have  cruelty  enough. 

If  it  be  asked,  for  what  reason  these  persecutions  were 
carried  on,  we  may  answer,  probably  because  families  were 
disturbed,  and  things  were  seen  to  go  out  of  their  usual  course, 


4  Answered  by  Warburton,   Pref.  to 
2d  part  Div.  Leg. 

5  Historic  Doubts,  Pref.  p.  vii. 

e  De  rebus  Christianorum,  p.  97»  quoted 
by  Lard.  Test.  3.  336. 

7  Quoted  ib.  p.  338,  from  de  Civ.  Dei. 
18.  52. 

8  Snip.  Severus  gives  a  short  account 
of  the  persecutions,  Lib.  ii. 

n  Works,  vol.  viu.  p.  33J. 
10  Translations  of  these  passages  may 


Chapter  of  Lardner's  Heathen  Testimo 
nies.  Works,  vol.  viu.  p.  293,  &c.  It 
is  mentioned  here  again  in  sect.  15. 

The  reader  is  to  conceive  that,  at  the 
lectures,  passages  were  occasionally  read 
out  of  various  authors,  as  time  and  oppor 
tunity  allowed :  they  were  always  read  in 
that  language  which  seemed  best  to  con 
vey  the  sense:  that  is,  in  English,  when 
a  good  translation  could  be  found,  or  one 
which  only  required  an  explanatory  re- 


easily  be  found  in  Lardner's  Works,  by  |  mark  here  and  there.  Lardner's  collec 
tion  is  so  large,  that,  after  I  became  ac 
quainted  with  his  works,  I  frequently 
used  his  translations,  not  unfrequently  of 
passages  which  I  had  before  used  in  the 
original,  with  imperfect  translations,  when 


the  tJufcr,  as  also  the  original  passages 
in  Tacitus  and  Eusebius.  Lard.  Works, 
vol.  vn.  p.  253,  from  Tacitus's  Annals, 
15.  44.  Also  p.  417,  from  Euseb.  lib.  v. 

pref.   and  cap.  1 Also  Lard.  Works, 

vol.  in.  p.  324,  from  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 
8.  13,  and  9.  6. 


Diocletian's  persecution  makes  the  40th  \    viii. 


the  case  required  them,  of  my  own. 
11  Lard.  Credib.  Part  I.  Book  i.  Chap. 


202  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.       |I.  XVUl.  13. 

which  would  have  the  appearance  of  disorder  and  irregularity:  I. 
the  priests  were  probably  very  clamorous,  when  they  found 
great  deficiencies  in  worshippers  and  in  victims.  Though  the 
magistrates  did  not  suspect  the  Christians  of  ambitious  de 
signs  in  increasing  their  numbers,  yet  they  wished  to  bring 
things  back  into  their  old  train.  To  do  this,  they  tried  gentle 
punishments ;  these  being  unsuccessful,  they  became  exaspe 
rated,  and  determined  to  raise  a  terror  by  excessive  severity1: 
— all  in  vain. 

Lardner  is  of  opinion  that,  in  some  sense,  Christians  might  284 
be  said  to  be  under  continued  persecution  for  the  first  three2 
centuries :  in  theory,  they  probably  were,  though,  in  fact,  per 
secution  seems  to  have  been  often  suspended,  and  never  was 
universal.  It  must  not  be  said  that  Romanists  in  England 
are  under  persecution,  because  penal  laws  are  in  being  against 
them ;  for  these  laws  are  only  of  a  political  sort,  intended  to 
prevent  revolutions  in  civil  government.  No  such  revolutions 
were  apprehended  from  early  Christians. 

13.  No  one  record  seems  better  adapted  to  give  us  an 
idea  of  the  state  of  Christians  under  heathen  emperors,  than 
the  famous  epistle3  of  Pliny  to  Trajan.  This  therefore  I 
will  read,  with  such  remarks  as  may  occur,  as  well  as  the 
emperor's  rescript.  Pliny  had  the  government  of  the  pro 
vince  of  Bithynia,  or  Pontus  and  Bithynia;  but  he  was  not 
called  proconsul,  only  proprietor  with  proconsular  power :  his 
letter  to  Trajan  was  written  from  his  province,  and  might  be 
dated  in  the  year  106  or  107.  He  was  augur,  and  very  much 
attached4  to  the  religion  of  his  country.  I  will  now  mention 
some  particular  expressions  of  this  epistle.  Cognitiones  shews, 
that  taking  cognizance  of  Christians  was  common  ;  but  yet 
Pliny's  ignorance  shews  that  he  had  no  edicts  to  execute 
against  them.  It  seems  severe  to  doubt  whether  youth 
should  have  no  lenity  or  indulgence  shewn  it.  Flagitia  pro 
bably  were  only  neglecting  the  gods,  or  the  injunctions  of 
magistrates  about  them  ;  yet  it  was  easier  to  punish  Christians 
merely  for  their  name,  than  to  have  any  facts  to  prove.  .  .  Duci 
seems  to  imply  punishment  of  convicts.  It  is  evident  that 
punishment  was  now  inflicted  on  Christians  merely  for  their  285 
religion.  They  were  encouraged  to  apostatize,  that  is,  to  be 
false,  and  what  they  thought  impious ;  and  for  this  they  were 

1  See  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  vm.  p.    I       2  Works,  vol.  viu.  p.  335. 
333,  334 ;  and  Matt.  x.  34,  35.  3  Lib.  x.  Ep.  97.  4  i.  12.  16. 


I.  Xviii.    lo.]       PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  '203 

I.  rewarded.  Ought  mere  perseverance  to  be  punished,  even  in 
things  presumed  to  be  indifferent  ?  Pliny  seems  to  consider 
sending  Bithynians  to  Rome  as  a  trifle  ;  but  it  would  probably 
ruin  those  that  were  sent.  Plures  species  inciderunt,  "dif 
ferent  sorts5  of  people  fell  in  my  way."  Attending  to  anony 
mous  accusation  as  evidence,  (libellus  sine  autore,)  is  tyran 
nical,  and  justly  reprobated  by  the  emperor.  We  see  that 
no  Christian  would,  upon  any  account,  sacrifice  to  heathen 
gods,  or  blaspheme  Christ.  Trajan  was  deified  in  his  life 
time.  Pliny  took  his  account  from  apostates:  how  wonder 
fully  favourable,  if  we  consider  that  they  wanted  an  excuse 
for  their  apostasy  !  Early  Christians  seem  to  have  addressed 
themselves  to  Christ  :  tanquam  Deo,  does  not  absolutely 
prove  their  acknowledging  his  divinity,  as  the  expression  may 
admit  of  an  heathen  sense.  Carmen,  a  set  form,  opposed  to 
extempore  addresses  :  Sacramentum,  though  understood  as 
only  an  oath  by  Pliny,  probably  meant  the  Eucharist  —  as 
the  repast  also  meant  an  '  Aycnrf.  We  see  what  good  morals 
the  Christians  had,  notwithstanding  their  great  attention  to 
mere  religion.  The  ministrce  must  have  been  deaconesses; 
Pliny  imagined  them  slaves,  from  the  name  of  their  office. 
How  cruel  to  put  them  to  the  torture  !  they  were  probably 
aged,  by  1  Tim.  v.  9,  and  how  ineffectual  !  Christianity  Pliny 
called  superstitio,  because  it  was  out  of  his  way,  and  he  was 
5286  out  of  humour  with  it  :  prava,  because  it  was  to  him  perverse, 
distorted,  out  of  the  train  of  his  notions  :  immodica,  because  it 
declared  sublime  doctrines,  and  told  wonderful  things  ;  of 
incarnation,  resurrection,  ascension,  future  and  universal 
judgment.  Victims  were  expensive  ;  gain  as  well  as  honour 
was  concerned  ;  both  stimulated  the  priests  to  foment  a  perse 
cution.  That  persecution  made  Christians  give  ~way  —  at  least 
for  a  time. 

Trajan  writes  like  an  honourable  soldier;  not  like  a  philo 
sopher,  or  a  lawgiver  studying  the  good  of  mankind.     His 

5  May  not  species  mean  different  sects   \       "  It  might  make  men  give  way,  who 
of  Christians  ?  many  heresies  must  have    j    were  before  sincere.    Human  weakness 


subsisted  by  the  year  106 ;  or  may  spe 
cies  mean  Christians  in  different  degrees  2 
such  are  described  by  Pliny ;  or  different 
rankx  or  offices  in  the  Church  ? 

e  Promiscuum,  consisting  of  rich  and 
poor.  Does  innoxium  mean  not  feeding 
upon  children  ?  &c. 


is  to  be  pitied,  fortitude  to  be  admired. 
1793,  I  introduced  here  Archbp.  Cran- 
mer's  recantation,  effected  by  wearing 
him  down,  and  then  ensnaring  him  with 
pleasure.  Libaniits  boasts  that  he  had 
made  some  Christians  dance  round  hea 
then  altars.  Lard.  vol.  vui.  p.  439. 


204  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.       [I.  Xviii.  14. 

approbation  of  Pliny's  general  conduct  was  harsh  and  severe.   I. 
His  saying,  that  Christians  were  not  to  be  searched  for,  shews 
an  opinion  of  their  innocence,  and  also  some  fearof  them ; 
his  adding,  that  they  were  to  be  punished  if  brought  before 
him,  is  scarcely  just.      Tertullian1  is  eloquent  upon  this  in 
consistency. 

Upon  the  edict  of  Pliny,  the  Christians  left  off  their  love- 
feasts  ;  hence  it  appears  that  they  thought  them  not  essential, 
and  judged  it  their  duty  to  comply  with  the  orders  of  the  civil 
magistrate,  as  far  as  they  could. 

14.  Having  given  directions  for  reading  heathen  authors 
concerning  Christianity,  it  seems  proper  to  ask,  whether  all 
heathen  authors  who  wrote  before  Constantine  the  Great  have 
taken  notice  of  Christians  ?  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  some 
have  not ;  nay,  that  some  have  taken  little  or  no  notice  of 
Christians,  who  might  have  been  thought  likely  to  speak  of 
them  with  attention.  We  may  conceive,  I  think,  that  hea-  287 
thens  who  had  literature  enough  to  write  books  that  should 
continue  to  be  read,  would  be  perplexed  about  the  Christian 
religion,  if  they  did  not  attend  enough  to  it  to  embrace  it. 
At  first  it  would  be  despised  or  overlooked ;  writers  would 
get  no  decided  opinion  about  it ;  it  would  grow  in  time  too 
important  and  too  virtuous  to  be  spoken  of  by  candid  men 
with  contempt  and  blame.  It  pretended  to  such  high  and 
extraordinary  things,  that  it  could  not  be  lightly  commended ; 
the  easiest  way,  then,  for  those  who  had  no  particular  call  to 
speak  of  it,  was  entirely  to  pass  it  by.  To  this  the  pride  of 
philosophy  might  contribute,  in  some  cases ;  but  men  are  often 
incurious  about  sects  of  religion ;  and  the  heathens,  never  hav 
ing  had  any  idea  of  any  thing  but  different  sorts  of  idolatry, 
would  be  particularly  so.  How  many  of  near  sixty,  now 
present,  know  the  discipline  and  tenets  of  the  meeting-houses 
at  this  time  in  Cambridge?  Suppose  any  heathen  to  attempt 
to  give  some  account  of  Christianity,  he  would  find  it  difficult, 
on  account  of  the  multitude  of  facts  and  out-of-the-way 
notions  which  would  crowd  upon  him,  as  well  as  prophecies. 
Then,  those  who  have  been  concerned  in  writing  books  know, 
that  the  principal  subject  occupies  the  attention,  and  that 
they  are  obliged  to  neglect  men  and  things,  and  even  writings, 
which  all  the  world  is  surprised  at  them  for  neglecting.  Be 
sides,  the  number  of  books  which  is  come  down  to  us,  com- 

1  Apol.  Cap.  2. 


I.  Xviil.  14.]        PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  205 

I.  posed  in  the  first  three  or  four  centuries,  is  very  small.  I 
suppose  the  number  of  books  published  in  London  in  one  year 
must  be  many  times  greater  than  all  the  heathen  writings 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  taken  together,  published  in 
three  hundred  years.  We  may  observe,  that  Pliny  takes  no 
notice  of  the  Christians,  except  as  far  as  he  is  forced  to  it  by 

288  some   inconvenience:    the   same    might    probably    be    said    of 
Tacitus  and  Suetonius.      Whether  any  of  Pliny's  letters  were 
written    to    Tacitus,    &c.    after    his    letter    to    Trajan    about 
Christians,  I  do  not  know.     Then  he  must  have  had  the  highest 
opinion    of   their   morals ;   but,   before   that,    had    Pliny  and 
Tacitus  been  duly  attentive,  or  Pliny  and  Trajan,  they  must 
have  communicated  about  so  pure  a  religion  as  the  Christian. 
(See  Lardner's  Heathen  Test.  Chap.  ix.  end.)     Every  instance 
of  blameable  carelessness    (and    we   find   many  blunders   and 
misrepresentations)  in  heathen  writers   about  Christians,  may 
operate  in  accounting  for  the  omissions  which  we  find  in  them, 
for  passing  Christians  by  without  reason;  for,  when  we  wonder 
at  their  omissions,  we  take  for  granted  they  would  not  have 
omitted  any  thing  without  some  good  reason,  whereas  we  find 
that  they  say  many  things  without  reason. 

Lardner  has  mentioned  some  omissions  much  to  our  pre 
sent  purpose2.  From  Eusebius  he  observes  that  most  his 
torians,  with  a  view  to  please  their  readers,  have  treated  of 
ivars,  victories,  trophies,  blood  :  Christianity  would  be  far  out 
of  the  way  of  such  authors.  He  says  that  Velleius  Pater- 
culus's  history  is  not  found  mentioned  in  any  ancient  writer, 
except  Priscian  the  grammarian ;  though  Velleius  was  of  a 
good  family,  and  flourished  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  That 
Lucian  has  taken  little  notice  of  Roman  authors,  or  Roman 
affairs,  though  he  was  a  subject  of  the  Roman  empire ;  par 
ticularly  he  has  said  nothing  of  Cicero,  though  he  has  a 
laboured  encomium  on  Demosthenes,  and  though  Plutarch 
and  Longinus  have  made  nice  and  critical  comparisons  be 
tween  those  two  celebrated  orators.  That  Maximus  Tyrius 

289  is  not  thought  by  his  editor  (the  learned  Davies  of  Queen's 
College)  to  have  made  any  reference  to  the  Roman  history, 
though  he  wrote  (as  a  Platonic  philosopher)  several  of  his  dis 
sertations  at  Rome,  and  flourished  under  Antoninus  Pius.    That 
the  emperor  Marcus  Antoninus  had  two  sons,  who   are  not 
mentioned   by   any   ancient  historian;  Mabillon  speaks  of  it. 

-  Test.  Chap.  xii.  sect.  3. 


206  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.        [I.  xviii.  15. 

That  La  Roche,  the  abridger  of  Brandt  the  historian,  observes  I 
"  that  the  best  way  of  stopping  the  progress  of  heresies  is  to 
seem  to  neglect  them  ;"  mentioning  as  an  instance,  that,  in 
the  year  1525,  orders  were  sent  to  the  convents  in  the  low 
countries,  "  to  forbid  preachers  to  mention  Luther  and  his 
doctrine,  and  the  opinions  of  ancient  heretics/' 

Dr.  Lardner  observes  farther,  that  Epictetus  may  have 
been  afraid  of  giving  occasion  to  doubts  and  disquisitions 
concerning  "  the  popular  deities,  and  the  worship  paid  to 
them1.11  These  observations  seem  quite  sufficient  to  take  off 
the  effect  of  a  mere  negation  or  blank ;  especially  in  times  very 
remote,  affording  us  few  circumstances  which  can  be  combined 
and  formed  into  arguments :  they  seem  also  sufficient  to  pre 
vent  it  from  weakening  the  credit  of  our  religion.  Josephus's 
silence  has  been  mentioned"  before. 

I  say  nothing  of  the  silence  of  Jewish  writers  concerning  290 
the  affairs  of  Christianity,  such  a  very  small  number  of  books 
in  the  Hebrew  language  has  come  down  to  us3. 

15.  What  has  been  hitherto  said,  in  the  farther  consider 
ation  of  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  as  a  fact,  has  been  in 
the  way  of  introduction  to  the  reading  of  heathen  authors 
about  the  concerns  of  Christianity ;  but  yet  it  has  incidentally 
anticipated  the  reading  of  them  in  some  measure,  and  made 
it  less  necessary  to  be  very  particular  in  describing  the  gradual 
increase  of  numbers  amongst  the  professors  of  the  new  religion. 

But  we  will  fix  upon  two  eras  as  specimens,  and  mention 
the  strength  of  the  Christian  interest  in  them  ;  leaving  the 
rest  to  the  student  of  ecclesiastical  history.  These  eras  may 
be,  1.  The  close  of  t\\c  first  century ;  and  2.  The  time  of  the 
Emperor  Julian,  as  he  was  the  last  heathen  emperor.  But 


1  All  these  things  are  mentioned,  Lard 
ner,  vol.  vin.  p.  94,  tScc.  or  Test.  Chap, 
xxii.  sect.  3.     With  regard  t 

see  also  the  last  section  of  Lardner's  Re 
view  of  his  Testimony. 

2  Chap.  xiv.  sect.  12.     It  appears  in 
Lard.  Cred.  Part  1st,  that  Josephus  pre 
serves  many  edicts  of  Roman  emperors, 
&c.  of  great  importance  in  themselves, 
which    no  heathen  historian   preserves, 
because  they  related  only  to  Jews:  the 
omissions  of  the  heathen  historians,  in 
this  case,  neither  lessen  the  credit  nor  the 
importance  of  such  edicts. 

The  heathens  knew  so  little  of  the  TKI- 


tureof  Christianity,  that  when  they  broke 
into  a  Christian  church  they  expected  to 
find  the  statue  of  the  Christian  God. 
See  Lactantius  De  Mort.  Persecutorum, 
cap.  12,  "  revulsis  foribus  simulachrum 
Dei  quaeritur :"  and  Lard.  Works,  vol. 
vin.  p.  299. 

•3  This  section  might  be  concluded  by 
reading  Mrs.  Carter's  Note  on  Epicte 
tus,  lib.  vi.  chap.  7.  It  is  quoted  Lard. 
Works,  vol.  vn.  p.  355.  Indeed  the  in 
attention  of  the  heathens  seems  to  have 
been  very  blameable ;  and,  in  reality, 
more  disgraceful  to  them  than  to  the 
Christians. 


I.  Xviii.  15.]       PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


207 


I.  though  I  fix  upon  these  eras,  yet  some  of  the  steps  should 
be  mentioned  by  which  Christianity  grew  to  the  height  at 
which  it  was  when  we  choose  to  view  it  most  attentively. 
Christians  had  thrown  things  into  some  confusion,  by  preaching 
and  prevailing  upon  men  to  quit  the  worship  of  the  heathen 
gods,  in  the  time  of  Claudius1;  and  they  were  so  numerous 
that  Claudius  judged  it  most  advisable  to  check  them,  by 
ordering  what  he  thought  would  have  the  greatest  tendency 

291  to  check  them — by  forbidding  their  religious  meetings.     Ta 
citus  says  they  were  ingens  multitudo,  not  many  years5  after 
the  reign   of  Claudius;   and    we  learn  from  another  heathen0 
writer,  that,  before  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  there  were  great 
multitudes  in   many  cities  of  Greece  and  Italy.      In  the  time 
of  Trajan7,   Pliny's   account  gives  information   concerning   a 
province  particularly  well   situated  for  our  purpose,  as  being 
at    a    great    distance,  both    from    the    source    of   Christianity 
and  the  seat  of  empire.      If  there  were  such  numbers  of  Chris 
tians  in  Bithynia  as  Pliny  describes,  if  their  religion  had  been 
so  long  there  that  some  had  deserted  it  above  twenty  years 
before  his  time,  we  may  well  believe  those  Christian  writers 
who  give  like  accounts  of  other   countries.      We   may   here 
mention  the  Emperor  Adrian's  letter  from  Egypt,  in   which 
he  speaks  of  Christians  as  being  equally  numerous  with  the 
worshippers  of  Serapis;  only  making  a  little  allowance  for  the 
increase  between  the  end  of  the  first  century  and  the  year  134, 
in  which  that  letter   was  written.      Indeed  the  state  of  Chris 
tianity    described  by   Adrian,  was  not  above  a  century  after 
our  Saviours  resurrection.      There  is  a  difference  in  the  style 
of  Adrian's  letter  of  business  to  his  minister  Fundanus,  and 
his  familiar  letter  to  Servianus,  his  brother-in-law.     In  gather 
ing  facts  from  them,  some  allowance  should  be  made  for  the 
flippancy  of  the  latter  *. 

In  getting  an  idea  of  the  extent  and  force  of  Christianity 
under  the  last  heathen   emperor,    Julian9,  we  should,  in  like 

292  manner,  take  notice  of  a  few  previous  steps.      And  we  must  go 
so  far  back  as  to  take  in  the  great  revolution,  by  which  Chris* 


4  Claudius  reigned  A.D.  41—53.  See 
Suet,  in  Claud.  25.  Dion  Cassius  15.  44. 
Powell  Disc.  10.  6  Powell,  ibid. 

0  Julian,  as  cited  by  Cyril,  lib.  x. 
See  Powell,  p.  158. 

7  Trajan  reigned  08—116.  Powell, 
ibidem. 


a  See  Lardner's  Heathen  Testimonies, 
Chap.  xi.  sect.  2  and  3. 

9  Julian  was  emperor  only  in  the  years 
3(11,  362,  363:  he  had  been  declared 
CcKsar  in  355.  Julian  was  mentioned 
Chap  xii.  sect,  16  and  17. 


208 


PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.        [I.  Xviii.   15. 


tianity  became  protected  by  the  civil  power.  Early  in  the  third  I- 
century,  Tertullian  declared,  in  his  Apology1,  as  a  thing  pub 
licly  known,  that  Christians  abounded  in  all  ranks  and  orders  of 
Roman  citizens ;  and,  when  about  a  quarter  of  the  century  was 
passed,  Alexander2  Severus  offered  the  Christians  to  put  their 
worship  upon  the  same  footing  with  others,  and  had  actually 
a  representation  of  Christ,  amongst  other  objects  of  religious 
veneration,  in  his  private  chapel.  By  the  time  of  Diocletian, 
men  of  high  rank  and  authority  were  Christians3,  insomuch 
that  some  had  the  government  of  foreign  provinces,  with  per 
mission  not  to  sacrifice  to  the  gods.  This  great  prosperity 
of  the  Christians  did  harm  to  their  morals ;  they  began  to  be 
loose  and  careless  in  their  conduct ;  ambition  and  faction  began 
to  appear.  In  the  19th  year  of  Diocletian4,  that  is,  in  the 
year  303,  began  the  last  attempt  to  exterminate  Christianity  by 
terrifying  its  professors.  A  desperate  and  bloody  attempt  it 
was — savage  and  cruel  beyond  conception ;  and  it  lasted  ten 
years!'3  The  greatness  of  the  efforts  which  were  made  proved 
the  importance  of  Christianity,  as  clearly  as  the  prosperity 
which  immediately  proceeded  them :  they  extended  to  Chris 
tian  scriptures  and  buildings.  When  we  read  of  the  cruelties 
of  this  persecution,  nothing  but  pity  could  prevent  our  blazing 
out  into  a  flame  of  indignation — nothing  but  indignation  could 
prevent  our  melting  into  compassion ;  but  we  must  now  re 
strain  ourselves  from  indulging  either,  and  attend  only  to  293 
matters  historical.  The  two  emperors6  who  set  this  persecu 
tion  in  motion  soon  retired  from  government,  though  one  of 
them7  afterwards  appeared  for  a  while,  in  order  to  establish 
his  son  in  the  imperial  sovereignty.  Constantine  began  to 
reign  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  persecution,  when  the  imperial 
authority  was  divided  amongst  several8;  and  he  did  not  at  first 
hold  the  highest  rank,  that  of  Augustus  and  Imperator.  So 
the  persecution  proceeded,  and  raged  in  very  distant  parts  of 
the  globe.  The  first  relaxation  seems  to  have  taken  place  at 


1  Tert.  Apol.    c.   36 — See    Pearson, 
Creed,  Art.  2.      2  He  reigned  222—235. 

3  Euseb.  viii.  1.     Lard.  Test.  Chap, 
xl.,  beginning. 

4  Diocletian  reigned  284— 30«. 

5  This  is  mentioned  before,  sect.  12. 

6  Diocletian  and  Maximian  Herculius. 
See  Lard.  vol.  vni.  p.  295. 

7  Maximian  Herculius.  Maxentiuswas 
his  son. 


8  At  one  time  there  were  six  emperors, 
Maximian  (Herculius),  (  Maximian)  Ga- 
lerius,  Constantine  (as  son  of  Constantius 
Chlorus),  Maximin  (of  low  birth,  a  re- 
lation  of  Galerius),  Maxentius  (son  of 
Maximian  Herculius),  and  Licinius  (an 
old  acquaintance  of  Galerius,  afterwards 
married  to  Constantine's  sister,  Constan- 
tia).  Lard.  vol.  VTIT.  p.  29f>. 


I.  XV'iii.  15.]         PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  209 

I.  Nicomedia  (near  the  Propontis,  in  Bithynia)  in  311;  it  was 
probably  occasioned  by  the  workings  of  nature  (how  often  do 
they  effect  what  no  authority,  no  exhortation,  can  effect  !)  in  the 
dangerous  illness  of  the  Emperor  Maximian,  called  Galerius <J, 
to  distinguish  him  from  Maximian  Herculius.  This  man 
published  an  edict,  giving  liberty  to  Christians  to  worship 
in  their  own  way,  and  signifying  that,  in  return,  the  Christians 
ought  to  pray  for  him  to  their  God.  He  was  probably  much 
terrified,  and  very  desirous  to  get  the  protection  of  any  super- 
294  natural  power.  Though  Maximin  ought  to  have  executed 
this  edict  in  the  East,  yet,  being  of  a  cruel  and  impious  turn, 
he  evaded  it  as  much  as  he  could,  by  giving  only  verbal 
orders;  but  his  minister  Sdbinus  contrived  to  give  written 
orders,  which  took  effect ;  for  the  generality  of  men  must  have 
become  tired  of  such  a  continuance  of  barbarity  to  harmless 
people.  The  next  year,  ,312,  Constantine  and  Licinius,  now 
become  his  brother-in-law,  published  a  very  favourable  edict  in 
Italy,  and  then  Maximin  in  the  East  was  compelled  to  write 
to  his  minister  Sabinus,  pretending  to  have  always  been 
against  oppressing  the  Christians,  but  only  to  have  consented 
to  it  from  the  necessity  of  hearing  petitions  of  the  heathens ; 
forbidding  all  men  to  oppress  Christians,  but  yet  not  expressly 
allowing  them  to  hold  their  usual  religious  assemblies.  This 
letter  or  edict  the  Christians  feared  to  act  upon,  knowing  Max 
imin  to  be  false  and  perfidious.  In  313  he  (Maximin)  was 
attacked  and  defeated  by  Licinius,  and  became  dangerously 
ill  by  poison  which  he  had  taken :  then  he  published  his  edict, 
properly  so  called,  and  he  died  soon  after.  Christians  now 
(in  313)  might  be  said  to  be  free ;  and  ere  long10  the  empire 
was  governed  by  Constantine  alone  (Licinius  having  been  put 
to  death),  and  he  embraced  Christianity.  On  what  motives 
he  embraced  it  we  may  not  perfectly  know :  we  are  sure  he 
dared  to  embrace  it;  and  he  probably  thought  that,  in  the 
whole  empire  taken  together,  the  superior  force  was  on  the 
side  of  Christianity,  taking  numbers  and  steadiness,  and  other 
principles,  into  consideration,  which  would  be  productive  of 
fidelity.  The  empire  was  less  likely  to  be  divided,  if  he  put 

9  He  styles  himself,  at  the  beginning    I   rius  as  one  of  his  names.     Ib.  p.  32.'}. 


of  his  edict,  "  Caesar  Galerius  Valerius 
Maximian,  Invincible,  August  (Augus 
tus),  High  Priest,"  &c.  See  Lard.  vol. 


So  does  Constantine.  Lard.  vol.  iv.  p. 
1 3H,  Note  a.  So  did  Constantine's  father, 
Constantius  Chlorus. 


vui.  p.  30fi.    And  Maximin  uses  Vale-    \       Ul  In  the  year  324,  or  323. 

VOL.  I.  14 


210  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.          [I.  xviii.  15. 

himself  at  the  head  of  the  Christian  party,  than  if  he  followed    I. 
any    other  plan.      Indeed  Maximin  confesses   the  strength  of  295 
the   Christian  party,  as  much  by  his  dissimulation  as  by  his 
saying1  that  almost  all  mankind  had  forsaken  the  worship  of 
the  immortal  gods. 

The  emperors  continued  Christian  till  Julian,  (who  was 
indeed  only  nephew  to  Constantine  the  Great),  and  ever  after 
him.  Of  Julian  we  have  spoken  before2;  we  are  now  con 
cerned  with  him  only  as  far  as  his  conduct  marks  out  the  state 
of  Christianity  in  his  time.  He  was  brought  up  a  Christian; 
but,  from  conversing  intimately  with  heathen  philosophers, 
or  from  other  causes,  when  he  was  about  twenty  years  of  age 
he  turned  to  Hellenism^  as  he  called  the  heathen  religion.  He 
wished  very  much  to  extirpate  Christianity,  but  he  did  not  dare 
to  attempt  it  in  any  way  till  he  was  settled  on  the  throne,  and 
therefore  of  course  he  attended  Christian  worship  regularly ; 
nay,  afterwards,  he  appeared  at  Christian  churches,  though  he 
sacrificed  to  the  heathen  gods  in  private.  Not  that  he  took 
this  method  because  he  had  no  turn  for  war  ;  as  a  general  he 
had  sufficient  ability ;  but  he  was  convinced  that  violence 
would  not  answer  his  purpose.  He  seems  to  allow,  in  one 
of  his3  letters  (what  had  been  said  by  some  Christians),  that 
Christians  at  Bostra  equalled  the  rest  of  his  subjects  there 
in  number1;  and  they  were  certainly  more  united  than  any 
other  large  number  of  men,  though  not  so  much  as  they 
had  been.  He  did  indeed  banish5  Athanasius  repeatedly,  but 
in  other  cases  he  seems  only  to  have  taken  measures  which 
he  thought  would  have  a  tendency  to  hurt  the  Christian  inte 
rest.  He  interfered  with  the  education  of  their  youth,  forbad  296 
them  to  teach  the  liberal  arts,  kept  them  out  of  offices,  tried  to 
destroy  their  writings,  evaded  inflicting  punishment  on  those 
who  had  killed  a  bishop  at  Alexandria ;  but  his  chief  view  was 
to  excite  the  Christians  to  quarrel  with  one  another.  He 
advises  the  people  of  Bostra  to  banish  their  bishop,  Titus,  a 
very  valuable  man  ;  because  he  had  presumed  to  ascribe  their 
quiet  behaviour  to  his  own  admonitions.  Ammianus  Marcel- 
linus,  an  heathen  historian,  but  very  impartial,  says0,  that 
Julian  called  bishops  from  banishment,  on  purpose  to  excite 

1  Maximin  to   Sabinus.   Lard.    Test.          4  Lard.  Test.  Chap.  xLvi. 
Chap.  XL.  sect.  !».  -  I.  xii.  17-  r,  Lard>  Works,  vol.  vnr.  p.  414. 

*  Letter  to  people  of   Bostra.    Lard.  ;       c 
Test.  Chap,  xi.vi. 


I.  Xviii.  16,  1?.]        PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  211 

I.  divisions  amongst  them.  He  had  seen  the  heresies  then  sub 
sisting,  and  knew  the  grand  controversy  between  Catholics 
and  Arians,  which  had  occasioned  the  Council  of  Nice... 
But,  as  his  caution  shews  how  strong  the  Christians  were 
in  his  time,  so  his  writings  shew  how  good  and  virtuous 
they  were ;  particularly  his  letter  to  Arsacius~,  high  priest 
of  Galatia,  in  which  he  reprimands  the  heathen  priests  for 
not  following  the  example  of  the  Christian  clergy,  in  sobri 
ety,  humanity,  charity,  and  sanctity  of  life.  This  letter 
contains  such  extraordinary  encomiums  (incidental  and  re 
luctant  indeed,  but  the  more  forcible  on  that  account)  on 
Christians,  that  it  seems  necessary  to  add,  that  its  genuineness 
has  never  been  questioned.  After  Julian,  there  were  no  more 
heathen  emperors ;  would  we  could  say,  that  all  the  Christian 
emperors  who  followed  made  the  prosperity  of  their  religion 
to  depend  on  the  same  intrinsic  excellence  which  had  occa 
sioned  its  advancement !  or  that  the  body  of  Christians  had 
always,  in  their  state  of  security,  continued  to  be  as  gentle, 
297  and  pure,  and  virtuous,  and  as  much  united  amongst  them 
selves,  as  whilst  they  were  under  trials  and  persecution  ! 

16.  Having  thus  taken  a  farther  view  of  the  propagation 
of  the  Gospel,  as  a  fact,  we  must  now  enter  upon  some  farther 
considerations  relative  to  the  solution  of  that  fact.  That  is,  we 
must  consider  whether  Christianity  could  have  been  spread  in  the 
manner  described,  if  at  least  the  Gospel-history  had  not  been 
true.  And  here  our  thoughts  must  turn  upon  the  difficulties, 
humanly  speaking,  attending  such  an  advancement  of  such  a  re 
ligion,  so  circumstanced.  If  those  difficulties  cannot  be  con 
ceived  to  have  been  surmountable  by  human  means,  the  reli 
gion  must  have  been  divine;  at  least,  it  must  have  been  thought 
divine  by  those  who  embraced  it.  How  likely  they  were  to 
be  deceived  in  such  a  case,  may  be  a  subsequent  inquiry. 

17'  Difficulties  attending  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel 
would  be  either  on  the  part  of  the  hearers,  or  of  the  teachers. 

Difficulties  on  the  part  of  the  hearers  might  arise  from 
their  prejudices,  their  interests,  the  bodily  pains  they  would 
have  to  endure,  or  from  their  vices.  While  we  enumerate 
these,  in  some  imperfect  way,  we  must  endeavour  to  suppose 
ourselves  actually  concerned,  either  as  those  who  had  to  per 
suade  others,  or  as  those  who  were  to  be  persuaded  to  take  a 
very  important  step :  on  the  liveliness  of  our  conceptions  will 
7  We  lyive  a  good  part  of  this  letter  in  English,  in  Lard.  Works,  vol.  viu.  p.  416. 

14 — 2 


212  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.     [I.  Xviii.  18,  10. 

depend  the  force,  or  the  effect  at  least,  of  the  argument.     And,    I. 
to  give  us  lively  and  distinct  ideas,  is  the  principal  use  of  the 
descriptions  which  have  been  now  given  of  the  fact. 

18.  When  you  want  to  remove  a  prejudice  it  is  very 
difficult  to  gain  any  attention;  'you  may  talk,'  says  a  pre 
judiced  man,  'but  you  shall  never  persuade  me?  And,  when 
men  are  much  prejudiced,  they  lose  their  sense  of  their  being 
prejudiced  at  all :  prejudice,  in  this  respect,  resembles  in-  298 
sanity;  and  therefore,  as  it  increases,  it  grows  more  difficult  to 
cure  on  two  accounts,  both  because  the  disease  grows  stronger, 
and  because  the  patient  becomes  less  disposed  to  accept  a  re 
medy.  In  common  cases,  men  are  unwilling  to  give  up  their 
prejudices,  because  it  is  humiliating  to  confess  that  they  have 
not  been  under  the  guidance  of  reason.  Prejudice  becomes 
more  difficult  to  remove  when  it  gets  mixed  with  respect,  for 
then  it  is  a  species  of  virtue :  if  it  gets  linked  with  religious 
veneration  and  devotion,  it  is  a  species  of  piety.  Religious 
prejudices  are  the  strongest  of  all,  because  our  religious  ideas 
of  the  Divine  nature  and  heavenly  things  must  be  indistinct ; 
and,  where  reason  has  less  power,  prejudice  must  have  more. 
Pliny  the  younger,  and  Julian,  as  already  described,  are  strik 
ing  instances  of  the  force  of  religious  prejudice1.  And,  in  the 
l?th  century,  we  of  this  nation  had  an  instance  of  the  great 
difficulty  of  overcoming  prejudice,  when  King  Charles  I. 
attempted  to  force  the  English  form  of  ecclesiastical  government 
on  the  Scotch  Church.  I  would  not  take  for  granted  that  the 
English  form  is  best,  but  only  that  either  of  them  might  be 
admitted,  in  compliance  with  civil  authority2.  When  truth  is 
to  be  pressed  upon  the  prejudiced,  it  seems  difficult  to  know 
what  mode  to  adopt :  if  you  are  remiss,  you  have  no  effect ;  if 
you  are  severe,  you  exasperate  and  revolt3.  The  Jews,  we  299 
know,  were  very  strongly  prejudiced;  and  what  has  been  said, 
in  the  present  chapter  may  shew  that  the  Gentiles  were  not 
less  so:  the  calumnies  which  were  spread  abroad  about  Chris 
tians  would  add  strength  to  the  prejudices  of  both. 

19-  The  interests  of  those  to  whom  the  Gospel  was  preached 

1  I  here  read  (see  sect,  fl)  some  passa-    j       -  This  is  what  Dr.  Powell  proves  in 
ges  from  Libanius's  Oration  for  the  tern-       his  Thesis. 


pies,  and  the  petition  for  replacing  the 
altar  of  victory.     Translations  of  both 


3  Professor  Bullet  says,  "  In  the  last 
century,  the  Chinese,  it  is  well  known, 


may  be  found  in  Lardner's  Works  by  |  chose  rather  to  lose  their  heads  than  to 
the  indexes.  His  account  of  Zosimiis  j  cut  oft' their  long  hair.1'— p.  116,  by  Salis- 
affbrds  good  instances.  bury. 


I.  Xviii.   !<).]         PKOl'AGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  213 

I.  would  make  it  very  difficult  for  the  preachers  to  succeed ;  in 
deed,  interest  raises  a  strong  prejudice  against  any  opinions 
which  seem  to  threaten  it;  but  we  will  wave  that  at  present. 
It  is  a  dreary  and  melancholy  thing  to  fall  from  a  state  of 
affluence  or  plenty,  to  one  of  indigence ;  or,  in  general,  from 
an  higher  condition  to  a  lower:  to  live  in  a  daily,  hourly, 
perpetual  disappointment  with  regard  to  those  accommoda 
tions,  indulgences,  (luxuries,  if  you  please)  of  which  one  has, 
from  habit,  a  constant  expectation:  not  only  to  have  all  hope 
of  rising  cut  off,  but  to  feel  continual  mortification  (heightened 
by  the  triumphs  of  enemies  or  rivals)  from  a  sense  of  falling. 
Men  express  things  as  they  feel  them  ;  and  such  a  change  as 
this  therefore  gets  the  name  of  ruin,  &c.  And  though  some 
romantic  people  may  look  forward  to  a  low  estate,  and  indulge 
fond  imaginations  that  they  shall  be  happy  in  it,  yet,  I  believe, 
the  best  judges  of  human  nature  hold,  that  poverty,  unknown 
and  untried  before,  wears4  out  the  strength  and  vigour  of  the 
mind,  and  of  the  whole  human  constitution.  The  evil  may  be 
perhaps  an  evil  of  the  imagination,  and  might  be  relieved  by 
good  moral  expedients ;  but,  if  it  is  to  be  expected,  it  will  be 
a  real  evil,  no  matter  from  what  part  of  human  nature  it  pro 
ceeds.  Poverty  indeed,  to  be  a  difficulty  in  the  present  case, 
must  be  dreaded  as  one ;  it  commonly  is  dreaded  too  much  ; 
yet  it  is  to  be  accounted  a  real  evil.  If  a  few  enthusiasts  rush 
300  into  it,  the  evils  they  find  warn  others  ;  and,  in  general,  a 
man  who  knows  the  world  would  rather  have  any  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  his  proposal,  especially  amongst  men  who  were  in 
dustrious  in  different  occupations,  than  be  obliged  to  tell  them 
that  they  could  not  accept  his  proposal  without  reducing  them 
selves  to  poverty.  Nay,  the  prospect  of  ruin  is  often  consi 
dered  as  a  sufficient  apology  for  actions  confessedly  wrong. 

As  to  our  persuading  men  to  do  any  thing  which  would 
occasion  them  great  bodily  pain,  the  difficulty  is  too  evident  to 
need  much  explanation — it  is  very  great,  but  very  obvious. 
The  sensibility  of  human  nature  to  bodily  pain  is  very  strong; 
perhaps  the  apprehension  of  future  may,  at  any  moment,  be  a 
greater  evil  than  the  actual  sensation ;  but  that  makes  nothing 
against  us.  Our  argument  here  must  depend  on  any  persons 
conceiving  and  representing  to  himself  some  particular  case  of 
some  exquisite  bodily  torments,  inflicted  in  such  a  manner  that 
the  sufferer  could  at  any  time  escape,  by  complying  with  cere- 

4  Diderot,  Fils  Naturel,  Act  iv.  scene  2. 


214  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.       [I.  \viii.  20. 

monies  expressive  of  the  opinions  of  his  persecutors:  we  know    I. 
that  the  minds  of  men  and  of  women  unused  to  pain  faint 
under  such  sufferings.      Insomuch  that  a  person   who  makes 

use  of  them  would  be  said  to  use  violence,  compulsion,  &c 

terms  which  imply,  that  all  choice,  freedom,  &c.  are  overborne. 
It  is  therefore  much  more  surprising  if  they  do  not,  than  if 
they  do,  in  such  a  situation,  renounce  all  claim  to  distant  and 
invisible  rewards.  What  is  called  the  torture  has  generally 
proved  successful :  while  the  body  is  on  the  rack,  and  can  be 
any  moment  relieved  by  compliance,  distant  and  unknown  re 
wards  appear  visionary  and  romantic.  The  Christians  gene 
rally  yielded,  in  some  degree,  to  persecution  ;  in  Pliny^s  time 
we  know1  they  did:  though  perhaps,  in  private,  their  cause  301 
might  gain  strength  by  oppression,  as  but  few  out  of  the 
whole  number  sunk  under  it ;  and  as  impartial  spectators  must 
be  interested  in  favour  of  those  who  suffered  wrongfully,  by 
the  mere  force  of  humanity.  Mr.  Addison,  in  his  Evidences, 
&c.  has2  a  strong  passage  on  this  subject. 

20.  The  last  difficulty,  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom 
Christianity  was  addressed,  which  I  shall  mention,  is  that 
arising  from  their  having  indulged  *  vicious  habits.  I  do  not 
mean  that  any  difficulties  are  absolutely  insurmountable;  for  all 
those  that  I  mention  were  actually  overcome;  but,  if  it  was 
not  at  all  likely  that  they  should  be  overcome,  some  great 
power  or  influence  is  manifested  when  they  are.  Suppose,  then, 
you  were  to  set  about  preaching  holiness  to  the  vicious,  or 
were  to  exhort  those  to  learn  to  do  well  who  had  been  accus 
tomed  to  do  evil — "  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the 
leopard  his  spots4?1'  With  what  probability  shall  we  attempt 
to  give  a  man  perfect  sobriety  of  character,  who  has  an  in 
veterate  habit  of  drinking  strong  liquors?  or  to  purify  the 
heart  of  a  common  prostitute  ?  We  may  sometimes  hope  that 
we  have  reclaimed  him  who  has  an  habit  of  speaking  falsehood, 
from  lying  and  slandering  ;  or  prevailed  upon  the  pilferer  to 
keep  his  hands  from  picking  and  stealing ;  but  when  we  come 
to  trust  them,  we  find  they  relapse,  and  make  us  feel  con 
temptible  to  ourselves  for  placing  any  confidence  in  them.  In 
the  case  of  idolaters,  some  vicious  habits  got  confirmed  by 
religion ;  but  independent  of  that,  vice  in  general,  and  sensu- 

1  Sect.  13  of  this  chapter.  ;i  Prejudice  is  an  habit,  but  of  the  in- 

2  vii.  4,  quoted  by  Lardner,    Works,    i   tellectual  sort;  we  now  speak  chiefly  of 
vol.  vn.  p.  437.  i   moral  habits.  4  Jer.  xiii.  23. 


I.  Xviii.  21.]         PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  215 

I.   alitv  in  particular,  benumbs  the  finer  feelings,  and  sears  those5 

302  nerves  which  in  the  'good    are  made  to  thrill  and  vibrate  by 
every  generous   act    of  virtue,   by   every   instance   of  rational 
piety. 

Though  these  difficulties  are  great  when  single,  they  are 
much  greater  when  united;  which  they  often  are:  at  least, 
those  who  first  laboured  to  propagate  the  Christian  religion 
would  often  find  prejudice,  interest^  and  vice  combined  against 
them;  so  that,  in  order  to  their  success,  they  must  change  men 
from  prejudiced  to  unprejudiced,  from  selfish  to  disinterested; 
from  slaves  of  habit,  to  free  servants  of  God:  they  must  have 
to  make  the  Ethiopian  fair,  the  leopard  unspotted :  and  the 
convert,  in  whom  prejudice,  interest,  and  vice  had  been  com 
bined  before  his  conversion,  might  have  moreover  no  very- 
distant  prospect  of  being  called  to  endure  bodily  pain.  When 
a  convert  underwent  such  changes,  it  was  indeed  like  being 
born  again. 

We  see,  then,  what  prospect  we  should  have,  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  things,  of  prevailing  upon  a  Roman  to  give  up  the 
protection  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus,  and  openly  declare  a  con 
tempt  of  his  godhead  before  a  magistrate,  or  to  abjure  all  the 
mysteries  of  Bacchus  and  Venus.  We  see  what  madness  it 
would  be  in  us,  as  common  men,  to  attempt  the  conversion  of 
Egypt,  by  reviling  Serapis,  Isis,  and  Osiris  ;  or  by  arguing 
against  devotions  offered  to  an  onion,  a  cat,  or  a  crocodile  ! 

21.  But  it  might  be  useful  not  only  to  suppose  cases,  but 
to  study  that  which  is  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles6,  as 
that  shews  us,  in  a  very  lively  manner,  the  effects  of  the  com 
bined  forces  of  prejudice,  interest,  and  habits.  "  Great  is 
Diana  of  the  Ephesians !"  "the  image  which  fell  down  from 
Jupiter!" — "that  the  temple  of  the  great  goddess  Diana 

303  should  be  despised,  and  her  magnificence  should  be  destroyed, 
whom  all  Asia  and   the   world  worshippeth!"   Such  were  the 
words  of  the  artists  who  provided  the  worshippers  of  Diana 
with  shrines  and  other  things.     They  were  not  only  afraid  for 
their  interest ;  they  were  zealous  also  for  the  honour  of  their 
goddess;  so  at  least  they  fancied.    The  Jews  wanted  to  be  dis 
tinguished  from  Christians;  Paul,  they  urged,  was  not  of  their 
sect;  they  called  out  Alexander  to  explain  this  matter;  but  as 
soon    as    the  multitude   knew   that  he   was  one  of  those  who 
were  so  impious  as  to  say,  that  they  were  no  gods,  which  were 

s  1  Tim.  iv.  2.     Ephes.  iv.  ID.  6  Acts,  Chap.  xix. 


216  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.       [I.   Xviii.  22. 

made  with  hands,  they  "  with  one  voice  about  the  space  of  I. 
two  hours  cried  out.  Great  is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians!" 
What  think  you  now  of  making  these  craftsmen,  these  artists 
and  workmen,  give  up  their  gain,  and  this  people  their  great 
goddess?  In  fact,  these  tilings  were  afterwards  given  up;  but 
that  is  the  change  which  is  so  unaccountable.  The  Christian 

O 

Council  at  the  same  city  of  Ephesus,  in  the  year  431,  con 
sisted  of  two1  hundred  bishops,  and  an  innumerable  company 
of  Christians  of  different  ranks;  but  that  it  should  be  so,  will 
appear  the  more  strange  the  more  we  consider  what  myriads 
of  artists,  statuaries,  painters,  silversmiths,  besides  priests, 
victim-sellers,  and  others,  must  be  what  would  be  called  in 
jured,  ruined,  &c.  by  the  establishment  of  a  spiritual  religion. 
These  were  amongst  the  most  determined  enemies  of  Christi 
anity,  and  from  these  came  probably  most  of  the  informations 
against  Christians,  and  perhaps  many  calumnies. 

22.  Such  must  have  been  the  difficulties  on  the  part  of 
the  hearers,  in  bringing  about  the  fact  above  described,  the 
propagation  of  the  Gospel ;  supposing  the  teachers  qualified  in 
the  best  manner  possible.  Now,  we  will  suppose  the  hearers  304 
such  as  would  occasion  the  fewest  difficulties,  and  see  what 
difficulties  must  arise  on  the  part  of  the  teachers.  Here  we 
must  observe,  that  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity  set  out 
with  professing  that  they2  were  commissioned  to  convert  the 
whole  world,  and  this  profession  was  soon  published.  How 
could  such  a  thought  enter  the  mind  of  such  a  set  of  men  as 
these? — fishermen,  mechanics,  without  riches,  power,  art, 
eloquence,  learning,  or  even  (as  was  said  before3)  a  spirit  of 
fanaticism  !  To  conceive  the  difficulties  which  such  teachers 
must  have,  first  imagine  them  to  begin  their  preaching  in  our 
own  country.  Let  a  master  of  a  fishing- vessel  or  two,  at 
Yarmouth,  get  some  companions  of  his  own  rank,  and  let 
them  proclaim  that  they  mean  to  have  all  nations  come  over 
to  their  religion  ;  let  some  attempt  to  stop  those  who  are  in 
the  career  of  pleasure ,-  others,  those  who  are  warm  in  am 
bitious  pursuits ;  what  success  would  they  have,  even  sup 
posing  them  to  persevere  ?  Let  others  address  themselves  to 
plain  prudent  men  in  the  middle  ranks  of  life,  supported  by 
some  occupation,  exhorting  them  to  leave  their  counters,  and 
enter  upon  a  new  religion  ;  the  Head  indeed  of  the  religion 
had  been  executed  as  a  criminal  some  years  ago,  but  he  had 
1  Cave's  Hist.  Lit.  "  Matt,  xxviii,  10.  Mark  xvi.  15.  3  Sect.  2. 


I.  Xviii.  2,3.]        PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  217 

I.  commissioned  his  servants  to  teach,  and  would  come  in  glory, 
and  reward  them  hereafter ;  nothing  was  to  be  gained  till 
after  death,  every  thing  here  was  to  be  given  up,  or  hazarded. 
Would  the  success  in  this  rank  be  better  than  in  the  higher  ? 

Nor  was  there  anything  particularly  favourable  in  the 
times  when  Christianity  was  published.  From  what  has  been 
said  of  Gentilism  and  Judaism,  the  difficulties  would  not  be 

305  less  under  them.  The  teachers  of  Christianity  had  nothing  to 
make  compensation  to  the  heathens  for  the  loss  of  their  plea 
surable  worship,  nor  to  the  Jews  for  giving  them  a  carpenter's 
son  for  their  Messiah,  instead  of  a  king  to  sit  literally  on 
the  throne  of  David,  and  procure  for  them  universal  dominion. 
Such  teachers  would  be  despicable  to  the  heathens  merely  by 
being  Jews,  especially  if  philosophers  opposed  them  ;  and  to 
the  Jews  they  would  be  odious,  because  they  would  address 
them  as  the  murderers  of  that  very  person  whose  religion  they 
exhorted  them  to  embrace.  Teachers  under  these  disad 
vantages  go  to  Rome,  Athens,  Jerusalem  ! — they  attempt  the 
whole  world.  Consider  of  what  the  world1  consists,  of  what 
variety  of  tempers,  manners,  principles !  surely  the  difficul 
ties,  merely  on  the  part  of  the  teachers,  must  appear  insuper 
able. 

23.  Having  then  offered5  farther  thoughts  upon  the  fact, 
and  upon  the  solution  of  that  fact,  we  come  to  see  what  con 
clusions  may  be  drawn.  First  we  may  say,  in  general,  if 
such  difficulties  attended  the  publication  of  Christianity  as 
could  not  naturally  be  surmounted,  and  yet  were  surmounted, 
there  must  have  been  some  supernatural  power  active  in  its 
publication.  Indeed,  when  we  say  difficulties  could  not  natu 
rally  be  surmounted,  we  speak  only  on  a  footing  of  the  strongest 
probability.  How  likely  it  was  that  such  difficulties  could  be 
overcome  by  natural  means,  every  one  must  judge  for  himself. 
I  suppose  no  one  would  hazard  the  least  part  of  his  worldly 
interest  upon  the  success  of  such  means.  And,  when  we  say 
there  must  have  been  some  supernatural  power,  we  need  not 

o'06  be  understood  to  speak  of  any  thing  beyond  miracles  and  pro 
phecies.  If  any  persons  were  converted  by  arguments  taken 
from  miracles  and  prophecies,  I  should  say  that  they  were 
converted  by  supernatural  means ;  still  more  if  by  continued 
miracles,  or  the  supernatural  influence  of  God  upon  his  heart : 
on  any  of  these  three0  suppositions  the  religion  published  must 
be  true. 

4  Salisbury's  Bullet,  p.  11(>.  •"'  For  plan,  see  sect.  5.  G  Sect.  3  and  4. 


218  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.     [I.  Xviii.  24-,  2;5. 

But  \ve  may  say,  more  particularly,  one  of  the  three  fol-  I. 
lowing  conclusions  must  be  rightly  drawn  from  what  has  been 
said.  Either  1.  the  Christian  Religion  is  true;  or,  2.  the 
teachers  of  it  believed  it  false ;  or,  3.  they  believed  it  true,  but 
were  deceived.  If  we  can  throw  out  the  last  two  suppositions, 
we  of  course  establish  the  first. 

24.  Can  it  be  believed,  that  the  teachers  of  Christianity 
thought  it   a   false   religion  ?     That    a   set    of   men,    without 
prospect  of  worldly   advantages,  should   set  about  an  under 
taking  which  must  take  up  their  whole  lives,  the  teaching  of  a 
religion    which    they  themselves    did  not  believe  to  be  true, 
seems  a  notion  beyond  the  reach  of  the  most  flighty  scepticism. 
They  exposed  themselves  to  losses  and  persecutions  ;  possibly 
they  might  have  to  suffer  death  itself;  and  what  could  they 
expect  ?    Preaching  this  falsehood  was  to  be  their  employment 
for  life ;  after  this  life  they  had  nothing  to  expect  but  severe 
punishment  for  their  deceit  and  hypocrisy. 

25.  We  cannot  suppose  the  first  preachers  of  Christianity 
to  have  believed  their  religion  to  be  true,  if  it  had  been  false ; 
because  the  principles  of  it,  speculative  or  moral,  were  not  par 
ticularly  adapted  to  their  rank  and  manner  of  life :  Christian 
principles   were  too  strict,  humble,  disinterested ;    and  too  re 
fined.      Then,  as  to  the  miracles,  they  were  as  good  judges  of  307 
them   as  any  men   could  be ;  one  sees  no  way  in  which  they 
could  be   deceived  about  them.     They  continued  a  length  of 
time  in  a  course  of  examining  evidence ;  they  had  no  tempta 
tions  to  deceive  themselves ;  they  searched  the  ancient  Scrip 
tures,  heard  prophecies  explained  by  the  event ;   and  it  seems 
probable  that  they  never  fixed  their  principles  of  action   till 
after  the  ascension  of  Christ ;  and  then,  that  they  fixed  them 
upon  a  review  of  all  circumstances,  and  upon  mature  reflection. 
And,   supposing    the   very  first   teachers  had  taken  error  for 
truth,  yet  by  the  next  set  the  error  would  have  been  detected. 
The  facts  and  doctrines  had  nothing  to  make  them  accepted 

in  any  age,  but  their  appearing  to  be  true ;  and  at  first  there 
was  nothing  to  make  them  appear  true,  but  their  being  true : 
there  was  nothing  to  set  them  off  in  false  colours. 

If  then  the  Gospel  could  not  have  been  preached  by  those 
who  thought  it  false,  and  if  those  who  preached  it  could  judge 
of  it  so  as  not  to  be  deceived,  what  conclusion  can  we  draw  but 
that  the  Gospel  is  truc}  ? 

1  Here  might  be  introduced  that  line   ,  ner,  near  conclusion  of  Art.  Chrysostom, 
passage  of  Chrysostom,  quoted  by  Lard-       JVorks,\ol.  v.  p.  151,  152.  No.  5  and  6. 


I.  Xviii.  26,  27.]        PROPAGATION     OF     CHRISTIANITY.  21Q 

I.  26.  But  it  may  be  said,  the  religion  of  Mohammed  spread 
rapidly, — is  it  therefore  true?  We  answer,  the  mere  spread 
ing  of  a  religion  does  not  prove  its  truth,  if  it  is  spread  by 
human  means,  or  by  any  means  by  which  it  might  be  propa 
gated,  supposing  it  false.  The  religion  of  Mohammed,  we 
are  told,  was  propagated  by  arms ;  we  have  no  reason  to  think 
success  by  arms  an  infallible  proof  of  the  Divine  approbation, 
because  wickedness  has  prospered  by  arms.  In  some  sense,  all 

308  events  may  be  referred  to  God's  government,  (the  tyrant  is  his 
scourge,  the  fire  his  minister,)  but  the  manner  in  which  such 
reference  is  made  must  be  explained  when  we  hereafter  treat 
of  predestination.      As  to  miracles,  the  Mohammedan  teachers 
did  not  pretend  to  them,  except  in  the  delivery  of  the  Koran 
to  their  prophet ;   and,  with  regard  to  that,   they  argue  in  a 
circle  :  proving  the  excellence  of  the  Koran,  by  its  having  been 
miraculously  delivered,  and  the  miracle  of  its  delivery,  (which 
was  in  private)  by  the  excellence  of  the  Koran2. 

27.  Again,  some  sects  have  spread  rapidly  without  force 
of  arms3;  but  such  have  always  come  to  nothing  ere  long,  and, 
whilst  they  subsisted,  might  be  accounted  for  ;  by  an  enthusi 
astic  spirit,  favoured  by  some  peculiar  incidents,  or  in  some 
other  human  way ;  particularly,  perhaps,  by  an  eager  desire  of 
religious  instruction  from  those  who  had  taken  upon  them  the 
charge  of  giving  it,  but  who  were  settled  at  their  ease,  and 
had  turned  their  minds  to  other  objects,  in  consequence,  pro 
bably,  of  some  growing  customs,  which  had  prevented  their 
ever  gaining  a  right  idea  of  their  duties.  For  the  mind  of 
man  requires  religious  nourishment ;  and  if  such  nourishment 
be  not  duly  administered,  an  appetite  is  excited  for  it,  some 
times  one  so  strong,  as  to  take  any  food  that  is  offered  rather 
than  none.  The  account  given  by  Pliny  marks  a  great  calm 
ness  and  sobriety  and  virtue  and  piety  in  the  Christians  of  his 
time,  and  a  perfect  freedom  from  enthusiasm  ;  indeed  we  may 
say,  in  general,  that  the  spirit  of  Christianity  kept  diffusing 

309  itself  equably  ; — though  constantly,  yet  quietly  ;  it  kept  rising 
from  the  lower  ranks  to  the  higher,  and  gradually  found  its 
way  into  the  understandings   and  affections  of  the  most  im 
proved  and  eminent. 


2  Professor  White's  Bampton  Lectures 
are  so  generally  read,  that  it  is  needless 
to  enlarge  upon  this  objection.  Any  one 
might  also  consult  Mr.  Bryant's  Trea 
tise,  p.  188—203. 


3  See  Leland's  View  of  Deistical  Writ 
ers,  Letter  14,  vol.  i.  p.  230.  Chubb 
compares  the  spreading  of  methodism  to 
the  spreading  of  Christianity. 


220  PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.        [I.  Xviii.  28,  2<). 

Tli us  we  may  answer  this  objection ;  but  we  can  do  I. 
more  ;  we  can  turn  it  against  the  enemies  of  Christianity, 
and  make  it  very  powerful.  To  think  of  the  number  of 
founders  of  religions  pretending  to  divine  authority;  of  those 
who  have  professed  to  be  the  Messiah  promised  to  the  Jews ; 
of  the  number  of  lawgivers  and  moralists  who  have  figured 
in  the  world  for  a  time;  and  to  reflect  upon  the  manner  in 
which  their  credit  has  declined  and  died  away,  whilst  that 
of  Jesus  has  flourished  in  the  most  improved  countries, 
and  seems  likely  to  be  more  flourishing  hereafter  than  ever 
it  has  been  hitherto,  is  a  very  strong  confirmation  of  the 
other  arguments  which  are  urged  in  its  favour.  Professor 
1  Bullet  has  set  this  matter  in  a  strong  light. 

28.  It  has  appeared  that  the  subject  before  us   is   very 
extensive,    and    therefore    it   may    be    proper    to    mark   the 
extent  of  it,   as  far  as  can   easily  be  done.      To  understand 
the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  well,  we  should  be  acquainted 
with    matters    relating    to    heathens,    Jews,    and    Christians. 
We  should  understand  the  heathen  religious  rites ;  the  attach 
ment  of  the  heathens  to  their  religion  ;   the  nature   of   their 
toleration ;    their    government,    and    their   laws,   written    and 
unwritten ;    their    opinions  and    sects.      With    regard    to   the 
Jews,    we    should    understand   their   history,   from  their  first 
separation    down    to    the  destruction   of  their  temple ;    their 
dispersion,   and   settlements;   and  their  notions,   received   tra 
ditions,  and   expectations.     Of  Christian   concerns  we  should 
also  have  a  knowledge ;   such  as  Church  government,  assem 
blies,   ceremonies,  morals,  reputation.      All  which   we  cannot  310 
understand   without   knowing  the   views   of  the  authors    who 
mention  those   subjects,  their  characters  and  connexions,  with 
the  languages  in  which  they  write ;   to  which  may  be  added 
geography   and    chronology.      The   extent   of  the    subject    is 
here  mentioned,  in   order  to  shew  that  both   arguments    and 
objections  should  be  offered  with  modesty  and  diffidence,  when 

we  treat  of  it. 

29.  The    utility   of  studying  this    subject    seems   great. 
The  argument  from  facts  seems  likely  to  weigh   more,  with 
the  generality,  than  such  arguments  as  depend  upon  criticism  ; 
or  than  those  taken  from  the  obscurities  of  prophesy.    Besides, 
every  incident  makes  us  more  interested  in  the  cause  of  Chris 
tianity  ;   and  a  series  of  interesting  events  generates    in    our 

1  P.  140,  by  Salisbury. 


I.  Xviii.  30.]       PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  221 

I.  minds  an  affection  for  our  religion  :  and,  if  the  events  are 
not  miraculous,  we  adopt  them  with  the  less  hesitation ;  we 
have  no  doubts  or  scruples  about  believing  them  ;  and  for  that 
reason,  they  have  a  greater  effect  upon  our  hearts2. 

30.  Lastly,  we  should  distinguish  between  the  propaga- 
,311  tion  of  the  Gospel,  as  proving  the  reality  of  the  Gospel- 
miracles,  and  as  explaining  the  design*  of  God  in  those  mi 
racles,  taking  their  reality  for  granted.  The  distinction  has 
been  made4  before,  but  we  had  not  then  seen  the  manner 
in  which  the  Christain  religion  was  promulged.  We  can 
now  say,  if  we  had  only  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel 
to  render  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  credible ;  if 
the  records  of  those  testimonies,  which  have  before5  been 
produced,  had  perished ;  if  we  had  only  received  a  plain 
narrative  or  catalogue  of  the  miracles,  we  should  have  suf 
ficient  ground  for  believing  them.  But,  if  we  have  proof  of 
the  New  Testament  miracles,  independent  of  the  promulga 
tion  of  the  Gospel,  then  we  can  say,  that  the  promulgation 
of  the  Gospel,  or  the  conversion  of  the  world  from  idolatry, 
was  the  final  cause  of  those  miracles;  or,  that  the  promulgation 
of  the  Gospel  explains  their  design  and  meaning. 

But,  when  we  say,  that  we  believe  it  to  have  been  the 
design  of  God  to  convert  the  world  by  miracles,  though  we 
know  that  what  he  intends  must  be  executed,  yet  we  need 
not  conclude  that  every  miracle  compels  mechanically  the 
assent  of  every  man.  This  is  a  part  of  the  business  which 
we  do  not  see.  We  know  not  how  God  influences  and  super 
intends  voluntary  actions ;  but  we  conceive,  in  general,  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  things,  that  miracles  do  convince,  or, 
in  the  present  case,  convert.  When  Alfred  founded  semi 
naries  of  learning,  it  was  natural  for  those  to  whom  nothing 

-  These  thoughts  may  appear  better  in  pagation  of  the  Gospel  seems  a  train  of 

the  following  order.     The  utility  of  stu-  facts,  shewing  what  must  follow  from 

dying  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  con-  examining  the  evidences  of  Christianity  ; 

sists  in  its  strengthening  our  faith,  and  of  facts  level  to  an  ordinary  understand- 

interesting  our  hearts,  in  the  cause  of  ing.     Moreover,   nothing  could  interest 

Christianity.     Our  faith  is  strengthened  i   the  heart  more  than  a  continued  attention 


by  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  as  a 
strong  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
and  as  a  proof  in  which  the  generality 
readily  acquiesce.  Miracles  and  pro- 


to  this  train  of  facts  :  if  a  fictitious  fable 
interests  us,  what  must  the  his 
tory  of  early  Christians  do  (allowances 
made  for  the  times ),  in  which  facts  occur 


phecies,  in  right  circumstances,  are  valid       so  striking,  that  no  one  durst  insert  them 
proofs  ;    but    they   amaze,    and    having       in  a  fictitious  narrative  ? 

been  sometimes  feigned,  they  raise  a  de-  |       3  Powell,  Disc.  vii.  pp^H2,  113. 

gree  of  doubt  or  perplexity  ;  but  the  pro-  !       4  Chap.  xvi.  sect.  9.       5  Chap.  xvi. 


222  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  [I.  xix.    1. 

had  been  explained  to  conclude,  that  the  final  cause  of  such    I. 
foundations  was  to  improve  the  minds   of  the  people.     We 
conclude,  from   the  make  of  the  bones  in   which   the  eye   is 
placed,  that  the  final  cause  of  their  formation  was  to  protect 
the  eye.      In  all  our  opinions  of  this  sort  there  may  possibly 
be  some  error;   there  will  always  be  much  imperfection;  yet,   312 
humanly  speaking,  we  may  say  they  are  well  grounded. 

The  design  of  God,  when  sufficiently  apparent,  might 
afford  us  a  motive  to  co-operate — to  contribute  towards 
accomplishing  such  design ;  as  members  of  universities  might 
be  helped  in  their  motives  to  do  their  duty,  by  attending  to 
the  design  of  Alfred.  Yet  it  is  sometimes  dangerous  to  take 
for  granted  that  we  are  certainly  executing  the  plans  of 
the  Supreme  Being  ;  it  is  like  presuming  to  know  the  mind 
of  the  Lord,  and  fancying  that  we  have  been  his  counsel 
lors  ;  but  all  well-grounded  opinions  concerning  final  causes 
are  foundations  of  good  sentiments  and  principles;  and  those 
arising  from  studying  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  must 
greatly  strengthen  our  Christian  faith,  and  enliven  our  devout 
affections. 


CHAPTER    XIX.  313 

OF  THE  NEED  WHICH  MEN  HAVE  OF  REVELATION. 

1.  IF  we  look  back  to  the  short  Analysis  of  proofs  of 
the  Christian  Religion,  contained  in  the  12th  Chapter,  we 
shall  perceive  that  the  last  proof  is  the  need  which  men 
had,  and  still  have,  of  Revelation.  I  have  classed  it  as  an 
external  proof:  Bishop  Gibson  (near  the  end  of  his  second 
Pastoral  Letter)  mentions  it  as  an  internal  one.  I  presume 
this  difference  is  not  important.  We  have  before  us  a  spi 
ritual  disease,  and  its  remedy  :  if  our  views  are  fixed  upon 
the  disease,  and  the  proof  occurs  to  our  mind,  we  shall  con 
ceive  it  to  be  external ;  if  our  views  are  fixed  upon  the 
nature  of  the  remedy,  that  remedy  being  inherent  in  the 
Christian  religion,  we  shall  estimate  the  proof  as  internal. 

To  whatever  class  our  present  argument  may  belong,  it 
is  one  which  should  be  used  with  modesty  and  caution.  The 
danger  is,  lest  while  we  say  men  have  need  of  Reve 
lation,  and  therefore  God  gave  it,  we  should  fancy  ourselves 


I.xix.  2.] 


NEED     OF     REVELATION. 


223 


I.  in  the  place  of  God,  and  able  to  judge  of  his  plans  and 
designs.  It  is  presumption  in  us  to  say,  God  determined 
not  to  allow  this  evil,  God  provided  this  remedy  :  we  must 
not  say  any  thing  which  implies  blame  in  God,  either  for 
leaving  men  at  any  time  to  their  natural  faculties,  or  for 
supplying  them  with  supernatural  helps ;  as  we  know  not 
the  reasons  on  which  infinite  wisdom  interferes  with  general 
laws,  or  suffers  them  to  take  their  course.  Nor,  when  we 
are  most  inclined  to  conclude  that  God  provides  a  remedy 
314  for  an  evil,  must  we  affirm  that  he  forces  that  remedy  on 
those  who  want  it,  or  that  he  does  nothing  extraordinary 
in  order  to  gain  it  acceptance. 

When  we  see  moral  improvement  actually  take  place, 
in  such  a  manner  that  we  judge  it  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
Gospel,  we  may  then  think  ourselves  secure ;  but  here  again 
some  diffidence  is  necessary.  Improvements  in  arts  and 
sciences,  and  in  various  regulations  of  social  intercourse,  might 
possibly  bring  on  improvements  in  manners ;  though  it  ought 
to  be  acknowledged,  on  the  other  hand,  that,  in  any  Christian 
country,  even  arts,  sciences,  and  laws,  may  have  owed  their 
improvements  to  Christianity.  Candour,  gentleness,  a  peaceful 
spirit,  would  naturally  encourage  industry  and  ingenuity,  as 
well  as  every  kind  of  useful  regulation ;  and  nothing  could 
promote  such  a  disposition  more  than  the  Christian  religion. 
Though  Dr.  Powell  seems  to  have  intended  to  make  a 

o 

set  of  discourses  for  the  instruction  of  the  younger  students 
in  divinity,  he  does  not  appear  to  have  treated  this  sub 
ject;  but  many  eminent  writers  have1:  and  the  Founder  of 
this  Lecture  has  particularly  mentioned  it  as  one  of  the 
subjects  which  he  wishes  to  have  insisted  on. 

2.  But  though  we  ought  to  be  very  cautious  of  putting 
ourselves  in  the  place  of  the  Supreme  Being,  yet  we  can 
never  be  too  well  acquainted  with  the  facts  which  seem  to 
throw  light  on  our  subject ;  nor  with  the  nature  and  ten 
dency  of  mere  philosophy,  or  of  the  Christian  Revelation. 
Let  us  therefore  treat  our  subject  in  this  simple  way  :  let 
us  enumerate  the  faults  and  defects  of  religion  and  mora- 
315  lity  among  the  heathens;  and  afterwards  consider  the  ten 
dency  of  philosophy,  and  also  of  the  Christian  religion, 


1  Bishop  Butler,  Bishop  Gibson  (2d 
Past.  Letter),  Bishop  Law,  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke.  See  Locke  and  Whitby  men 


tioned,  Leland,  p.  21,  vol.  i.;  not  to  men- 
tion  foreigners  or  ancients. 


224  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  [I.  xix.  3. 

to  correct  those  faults,  and  supply  those  defects.  This  will  I. 
not  be  putting  ourselves  in  the  place  of  God,  or  judging 
how  far  the  same  good  ends  might  be  answered  by  other 
means ;  how  far  God  has  intended  to  control  the  choice  of 
man,  by  causing  the  Christian  religion  to  be  professed  as 
it  is ;  nor  how  far  the  improvements  which  have  taken 
place  are  owing  to  Christianity ;  that  is,  how  far  it  has 
actually  remedied  those  evils  which  it  has  a  tendency  to 
remedy.  Such  diffidence  will  not  stifle  our  religious  gra 
titude.  In  all  cases,  when  we  have  received  good  from 
any  dispensation  of  Providence,  we  ought  to  dwell  on  the 
particulars ;  such  reflection  will  generate  gratitude,  though 
we  do  not  peremptorily  determine  the  designs  of  God  in 
every  particular :  nay,  when  we  have  suffered  by  any  dis 
pensation,  if  we  reflect  on  particulars  with  a  pious  mind,  the 
unfavourable  events  will  generate  humility,  and  other  good 
sentiments;  but  this  by  the  way.  When  we  see  evils,  which 
Christianity  has  a  tendency  to  remedy,  and  which  it  seems 
to  have  remedied  in  part,  though  we  cannot  draw  our  con 
clusion  as  in  a  mathematical  demonstration,  yet  we  may 
reasonably  establish  a  strong  probable  presumption  in  its 
favour ;  nay,  one  as  strong  as  those  which  we  think  it  prudent 
to  act  from  in  many  important  worldly  concerns ;  and  one, 
therefore,  from  which  we  may  reasonably  act  in  the  concerns 
of  religion. 

3.  But,  before  we  proceed  to  enumerate  the  evils  and  de 
fects  which  Christianity  had  a  tendency  to  remedy,  it  will  be 
proper  to  conceive  in  our  minds  how  men  might  possibly  have 
improved,  or  continued  in  ignorance  and  barbarism,  without 
Revelation.  Such  conceptions  will  afford  us  a  kind  of  standard, 
to  which  we  may  refer  any  actual  faults  and  defects,  and  by  31 6 
which  we  may,  as  it  were,  measure  their  quantity  or  degree. 

If  man  had  no  guidance  from  Revelation  he  must  guide 
himself  by  experience.  By  making  a  variety  of  trials,  his 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil  would  gradually  improve,  as  would 
his  facility  of  doing  things  beneficial:  what  a  man  has  con 
sumed  a  long  time  in  acquiring,  he  may  often1  communicate 
in  a  short  time;  and  this  extends  to  practical  arts  in  some 
degree.  And,  as  morality  is  nothing  but  a  set  of  rules,  adapted 
to  promote  happiness,  social  and  private,  established  and  re 
cognized  by  the  moral  sense ;  and  as  these  rules  must  arise 

1  Chap,  i.  sect.  IJ. 


I.  xix.  4.]  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  225 

I.  from  experience,  the  observation  must  extend  to  morality. 
The  constitution  of  our  nature,  with  regard  to  habits,  must 
help  forward  improvement,  both  in  things  natural  and  moral ; 
for  as  arts  and  moral  duties  grow  easier  by  becoming  habitual, 
the  faculties  of  body  and  mind  can  enter  upon  new  fields  of 
action,  and  multiply  the  objects  on  which  they  may  exercise 
themselves,  as  well  as  increase  their  own  efficacy  by  such  exer 
cise.  Particularly,  it  seems  as  if  industry  and  temperance 
might  receive  gradual  improvements  by  an  attentive  experi 
ence;  and  these  are  the  two  virtues  chiefly  instrumental  in 
improving  mankind;  industry  creating  new  enjoyments,  and 
temperance  refining  them,  and  drawing  men  gradually  from 
the  more  gross  and  vulgar,  to  the  more  pure  and  noble.  It  is 
scarce  needful  to  say,  that  under  industry  is  included  applica 
tion  of  the  mind ;  and  the  mind  when  simple,  sincere  and  calm, 
yet  active  and  persevering,  can  invent,  multiply,  vary,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  regulate,  embellish,  improve  means  of  happiness 
without  end.  And,  by  supposing  men,  as  they  thus  advance, 
317  to  refer  every  thing  they  observe,  to  the  great  First  Cause,  we 
may  conceive  them  gradually  to  acquire  competent  notions  of 
religion. 

4.  Let  us  now  take  a  different  view,  and  consider  how 
mankind,  destitute  of  Revelation,  might  get  confirmed  in  igno 
rance,  barbarism,  and  depravity.  Mere  inexperience,  or  igno 
rance  of  good  and  evil,  does  not  strike  our  moral  faculty  so  as 
to  excite  disapprobation  or  abhorrence;  but  if  men  were  in 
such  a  state,  and  did  not  improve,  they  would  get  into  a  state 
which  would  be  worse:  they  must  have  some  gratifications,  and 
they  would  be  apt  to  seize  upon  the  most  obvious,  which  are 
the  lowest.  There  are  more  ways  of  getting  wrong  than  of 
keeping  right:  there  are  two  vicious  extremes  to  one  virtuous 
mean.  Men  slide  into  vice  without  effort,  but  do  not  recover 
themselves  without  strong  exertions.  Ignorance,  when  men 
give  themselves  up  to  it,  will  confine  them  to  animal,  grovelling 
indulgences;  and  animal  gratifications  will  lessen  the  pleasure 
of  instruction,  or  give  a  disgust  for  mental  application.  Habits 
have  here  too  their  influence,  and  serve  to  fix  and  settle  men  in 
depravity.  Persons  so  situated  soon  lose  all  sense  of  any  thing 
above  their  own  state,  all  consciousness  of  the  slavery  to  vice 
under  which  they  labour:  succeeding  generations  inherit  savage 
manners,  without  any  idea  of  their  being  avoidable,  or  out  of 
the  natural  course  of  things.  The  principal  faculties  which 
VOL.  I.  15 


226  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  [I.  xix.   5. 

distinguish  men  from  brutes  are  unknown,  or  little  attended   I. 
to  ;   science,  though  within  reach,  is  hid,  and  not  thought  of; 
enjoyments  of  the  noblest  sort,  like  gems  under  the  surface  of 
the  earth,  lie  neglected,  though  it  is  always  possible  to  procure 
and  polish  them ;  the  Supreme  Being,  appearing  only  as  the  cause 
of  evils,  which  no  one  endeavours  to  remedy,   is  an  object  of 
terror,  if  not  of  hatred;  rational  and  affectionate  worship  of  318 
him  never  once  occurs  to  the  mind. 

5.  There  is  one  thing,  relating  to  this  state  of  depravity, 
which  seems  to  require  being  mentioned  separately  ;  and  that 
is,  that  man,  in  such  a  state,  must  be  conceived  to  incur  the 
displeasure  of  God.  Man  is  accountable  for  his  actions ;  God 
is  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth;  our  being  given  up  to  a  repro 
bate  mind,  or  depraved  affections  and  vicious  habits,  does  not 
exempt  us  from  punishment.  These  are  truths,  but  need  not 
now  be  proved:  the  mention  of  them  seems  to  be  a  necessary 
part  of  a  description  of  a  state  of  depravity ;  the  proof  should 
be  offered,  when  it  can  be  insisted  on,  and  treated  at  large. 
Yet  this  may  be  a  good  opportunity  for  taking  notice  of  the 
expression,  the  displeasure  of  God,  as  it  is  one  which  has 
occasioned  dispute,  and  is  much  more  philosophical  than  at 
first  it  may  seem  to  be,  and  as  the  apprehension  of  punishment 
makes  a  considerable  part  of  our  present  subject.  The  ancient 
heathen  philosophers  seem  to  have  held  that  the  gods  were1 
incapable  of  anger,  or  of  hurting  any  one;  and  our  Church 
holds,  in  its  first  article,  that  God  is  without  passions:  on  the 
other  hand,  Lactantius8  endeavours  to  prove  that  God  is 
angry,  literally  speaking.  Origen 5,  in  his  fourth  book  against  319 
Celsus,  gives  a  sensible  account  of  the  matter ;  but  what  I 
would  principally  observe  is,  that,  when  we  speak  of  the  dis 
pleasure  of  God,  we  do  not  undertake  to  determine  what  is 
really  the  nature  of  that  displeasure  in  the  Divine  mind,  but 
only  to  describe  it,  as  nearly  as  we  are  able,  by  comparison  with 


1  See  Cic.  de  Off.  lib.  iii.  sect.  28,  29. 
Edit.  Pearce.     In  sect.  28,  he  seems  only 
to  speak  in  the  character  of  an  objector ; 
but  in  sect.  29.  his  reasoning  implies  what 
is  here  affirmed.     In  sect.  28,  the  notion 
that  Jupiter  is  never  angry,  appears  to 
have  been  common  to  all  philosophers. 

2  De  Ira.    See  also  Theophilus  of  An- 
tioch. 

3  See  Spencer's  Index,  "  Dei  /JY/,"  or 
p.  21 1 .    Spencer's  edition. 


ouv 


ovo/Jid^Ofiev    6eou'   ov 


ctvrrjv  eva 

els  T>JI/   6ia  <JKV- 

pioTroTcpcov  dyiaywv  Traioevcriv  T<H9  TCC 
Totrdce  KO.I  Toidde  ij 
call  it  the  anger  of  God,  but  we  do  not 
say  that  it  is  any  passion  of  his,  but  a 
something  used  for  the  purposes  of  dis 
cipline,  when  the  more  severe  kind  of 
methods  are  to  be  used  against  great 
offenders. 


I.  xix.  6.]  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  227 

I.  what  we  know  and  observe  amongst  ourselves.  That  is  as 
cribed  to  displeasure  in  God,  which  would  be  the  effect  of 
displeasure  in  man.  And  this  is  the  case  with  every  quality 
of  the  Divine  nature; — knowledge,  power,  goodness,  prescience, 
will,  and  so  forth.  We  do  not  know  what  these  are  in  them 
selves  ;  but  when  certain  effects  would  be  ascribed  to  them  re 
spectively  in  man,  then  if  the  effects  are  from  God,  we  ascribe 
them  to  similar  causes  in  the  Divine  mind.  The  displeasure 
of  God  then  means  only  the  cause,  in  the  Divine  mind,  of  those 
effects,  which,  if  they  came  from  man,  would  be  attributed 
to  displeasure.  According  to  this,  the  heathens  were  right 
in  not  allowing  men  to  take  for  granted  anger  in  the  Divine 
mind,  exactly  of  the  same  sort  with  human  anger ;  and  wrong 
in  concluding  that  no  effects  were  to  be  expected  similar  to 
the  effects  of  anger  in  man.  Lactantius  was  right  in  maintain 
ing  the  reality  of  such  effects  ;  but  wrong,  seemingly,  in  taking 
for  granted  that  punishment  must  imply  wrath  of  God  in 
a  literal  sense,  exactly  of  the  same  kind  with  anger  in  man. 
Origen  was  right,  both  as  to  diffidence  about  the  nature  of 
displeasure  in  the  Divine  mind,  and  as  to  the  reality  and  cer 
tainty  of  its  effects. 

There  might  be  intermediate  degrees  of  improvement  or 
depravity,  between  the  two  extremes  described  in  section  3 
and  4. 

6.  We  may  now  proceed  to  enumerate4  the  faults  and 
320  defects  of  religion  amongst  the  heathens ;  after  which,  we  will 
consider  the  tendency  of  the  Christian  religion  to  remedy 
them. 

The  heathens  certainly  ran  into  many  important  errors, 
with  regard  to  religion  and  morals. 

They  practised  openly  many  vices. 

They  had  not  sufficient  ground  to  expect  remission  of 
punishment. 

They  had  not  a  provision  for  the  religious  and  moral  im 
provement  of  the  people — of  the  generality  of  mankind. 

We  have  already  seen  something  of  heathen  errors,  in 
the  course  of  the  preceding  chapter.  All  idolatry  is  a  capital 
error:  and  all  worship  of  demons,  heavenly  bodies,  brutes, 
departed  heroes.  Impurity  in  religious  rites,  and  human 
sacrifices,  are  built  on  error.  And  even  when  the  heathens 
thought  of  a  deity  independently  of  matter,  they  ran  into  various 

4  According  to  sect.  2  of  this  chapter. 

15 — 2 


228  MEED    OF    REVELATION.  [I.  xix.  7 10. 

errors  concerning  his  attributes   and  his  government;  not  all    I. 
into  the  same  error,  but  each  error  wanted  correcting,   who 
ever  professed  it. 

They  erred  also  concerning  the  nature  of  the  soul,  and 
its  immortality;  and  a  future  judgment.  Indeed,  any  defect 
in  them,  taken  collectively,  might  be  reckoned  here,  as  well 
as  any  error  held  by  a  part,  such  as  that  concerning  fate, 
or  that  relating  to  the  transmigration  of  souls. 

7.  The  heathens  ran  without  scruple  into  the  commission 
of  many  vices.     Such   we  may  reckon  revenge,  enslaving  cap 
tives,  exposing  children,  suicide,  community  of  wives,  forni 
cation,    sodomy,    abortion1,    incest.      This   might   be    in    part 
owing  to  error;  but  moral  errors,  by  which  the  heathens  were 
induced  to  commit  any  vices,  may  be  mentioned  here. 

8.  That  they  had  no  sufficient  ground  to  expect  remission  321 
of  punishment,  will  appear  more  particularly  hereafter.     Their 
lustrations  or  expiatory  sacrifices,  tXacrrt/ca,  shewed  their  want 

of  such  a  thing. 

9.  That  they   made  no  provision   for    the  people   as    to 
religious  instruction,   seems  also  evident.     We  are  so   accus 
tomed  to  have  the  people  taught  the  truths  of  religion,  in  con 
sequence  of  a  provision  made  by  legislative  authority,  that  we 
have  no  idea  of  their  being  wholly  neglected — of  their  seeking 
for  religious  instruction  in  vain.     The  whole  number  of  teachers 
of  duties  was  so  2 small,  that,  supposing  them  to  be  evenly 
dispersed,  and  every  man   to  have  liberty  of  attending  them, 
it  would  astonish  any  one  to  calculate  the  distance,  upon   an 
average,  to  which  a  person  must  go  in  order  to  be  instructed. 
Then,  only  the  rich  were  instructed  by  any  philosophers,  and 
philosophers  were  not  looked  upon  like  our  clergy,   as  under 
obligation  to  practise  what  they  taught ;   to  set  any  example  : 
moreover,  there  was  no  unity  of  doctrine  amongst  them,  no 
system.      In  the  temples  there  were  no  instructions  or  exhorta 
tions  whatsoever ;   nor  was  there  any  book   corresponding  to 
our  Bible,  containing  precepts,  hymns,  narrations,  which  the 
people  might  peruse  and  think  of,  at   any  hours  which  they 
chose  to  dedicate  to  religion.     No  authority  of  any  kind  seems 
to  have  so  much  as  attempted  any  plan  for   the  information 
of  the  people,  relative  to  the  interests  of  another  life. 

10.  This  enumeration  of  evils   and  defects  may   be  suffi- 

1  See  Bishop  Gibson's  second  Pastoral  letter.    Grotius  on  Rom.  i.  26,  &c. 
-  Bishop  Gibson,  ib. 


I.  xix.  11.]  NEED    OF    11EVELATIOX.  229 

I.  cient.  But,  before  we  speak  of  the  tendency  of  the  Christian 
religion  to  remedy  them,  we  should  reflect  upon  them,  and 
consider  how  unlikely  they  were  to  be  remedied  without  reve 
lation  ;  by  mere  philosophy. 

322  11.    Mere  philosophers  would  find  it  a  difficult  and  dan 
gerous  task  to  convince  men  of  moral  and  religious  errors — 
dangerous  even  to  the  public.      The  task  would  be  difficult, 
because  moral  and  religious  opinions  are  particularly  abstruse3. 
It  is  much  more  likely  that  men  should  rectify  an  erroneous 
notion  about  a  rainbow,  or  about  vortices4,  than  about  things  so 
liable  to  cavil  and  sophistry,  as  some  parts  of  morals  and  reli 
gion;  and  so  nearly  affecting  conduct,  about  which  men  are  apt 
to  be  sore.     Moreover,  men  are  most  strongly  prejudiced  in 
favour  of  what  they  reverence;  they  are  the  least  apt  to  ques 
tion  what  they  much  respect.     The  attachment  of  such  men  as 
the  younger  Pliny  and  the  emperor  Julian  to  idolatry  is  a 
phenomenon  well  worth  mentioning  repeatedly. 

The  task  would  be  dangerous  to  the  public,  perhaps  some 
times  to  philosophers  themselves,  because,  when  you  take  away 
men's  moral  and  religious  principles,  you  cannot  immediately 
substitute  others  in  their  room,  with  all  the  strength  of  habits, 
sentiments,  affections,  and  moral  sense,  which  have  had  a 
gradual  increase:  and  any  virtue  is  better  than  none;  the 
worst  religion  is  better  than  a  total  want5  of  religion.  The 
virtue  of  a  savage,  for  instance,  is  chiefly  military,  or  intimately 
connected  with  military :  convince  him  at  once  that  he  ought 
not  to  glory  in  his  military  exploits,  or  boast  the  number  of 
his  scalps,  and  you  leave  him  unprincipled.  Nay,  I  know  not 
whether  suddenly  extirpating  the  notion,  that  children  may 
be  exposed,  if  they  are  likely  to  become  disgraceful  or  burden- 
.  some  to  the  state,  might  not  have  endangered,  at  some  times, 

323  the  love  of  country,  or  the  spirit  of  patriotism.      If  you  take 
away  an   old  pillar,  and  are  not  very  expert  at   substituting 
a  new  one,  the  whole  fabric  comes  down.     And,  as  to  religion, 
such  wise  men  as  Socrates  and  Cicero,  you  will  say,  might  have 
destroyed  idolatry.    They  did  not ;   but  suppose  them  to  have 
done  it  by  reasoning  and  ridicule,  and  you  must  conceive  the 
people,  at  that  time,  irreligious;  all  those  sentiments   thrown 
into   confusion,  which    had  for   their    object  superior  beings, 
as  the  protectors,  benefactors,  judges,  re  warders,  punishers  of 

3  Dr.  Balguy,  Charge  V.  p.  2ofi,  8vo.  4  Keil's  Astronomy,  index,  or  p.  201. 

5  Dr.  Balguy,  Charge  V.  p.  258,  8vo. 


230 


NEED    OF    REVELATION. 


[I.  xix.  12. 


mankind1.     If,  indeed,   something  rational  could  be  immedi-    I. 
ately   substituted,   the   change   would  be  for  the  better;  but 
philosophers  would  get  into    disputes  and  controversies ;   and 
these  being  very  intricate,  would  only  serve  to  fill  the  minds 
of  men  with  doubts  and  painful  perplexity. 

12.  Now,  as  to  vices ,  there  is  an  intimate  connexion  be 
tween  wrong  practical  opinions  and  vices.  The  word  senti 
ment  stands  sometimes  for  opinion,  and  sometimes  for  that 
feeling  which  immediately  impels  to  action,  and  is  considered 
as  a  part  of  active  virtue  or  vice.  But  our  business  now  is, 
to  consider  how  unequal  mere  philosophy  is  to  make  men  abhor 
and  forsake  their  vices,  when  acknowledged2  as  such.  Indeed, 
supposing  moral  errors  rectified,  then  all  vices  would  be  ac 
knowledged  as  vices.  Now,  to  conquer  vicious  habits  requires 
very  great  force:  greater  than  philosophy  can  boast.  Men 
sunk  in  brutal  sensuality  and  indolence  contract  an  insensi 
bility  about  excelling,  and  a  disgust  or  contempt  for  instruc-  324 
tion,  and  for  all  refined  pleasure.  It  is  only  some  great  shock, 
some  powerful  caustic,  which  can  rouse  them  from  their  stupid 
ity.  And,  if  they  for  a  while  attempt  to  practise  some  human 
virtues,  they  are  apt  to  relapse  into  their  former  brutality. 
The  proverb  mentioned  by  St.  Peter3  is  but  too  often  appli 
cable,  and  has  probably  been  introduced  by  some  idea  of  the 
lowness  of  men's  sensuality — "  The  dog  is  returned  to  his  own 
vomit  again ;  and  the  sow  that  was  washed  to  her  wallowing 
in  the  mire."  The  truth  of  this  can  only  appear  by  experience. 

To  forsake  vice  must  imply  to  embrace  virtue — to  bring 
the  moral  sense  to  approve  things  really  excellent4,  and  dis 
approve  things  really  base  and  pernicious.  But  I  apprehend 
our  moral  sense  is  generated  by  degrees;  and  therefore  if  you 
could  weaken  men's  attachment  to  certain  indulgences,  you  • 
could  not  immediately  make  them  love  what  you  set  before 
them  as  virtues ;  nor,  in  like  manner,  could  you  at  once  make 
them  abhor  and  detest  what  you  set  before  them  as  vices. 
To  do  this  requires  some  influence  more  than  natural :  mere 
man,  if  he  takes  to  pieces  the  moral  sense,  cannot  immediately 
new  fashion  it,  and  give  it  its  usual  energy. 


1  The  sentiments  are  much  the  same, 
though   the  objects  are  different :   gods 
are  always  superior,  invisible,  powerful, 
rewardcrs,  punishers,  &c. 

2  31  en  may  commit  vices  through  wrong 


opinions,  not  accounting  them  vices;  cor 
recting  these  would  be  rather  correcting 
errors  than  vices. 

a  2  Pet.  ii.  22. 

4  Phil.  i.  10. 


I.  Xix.  12.]  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  231 

I.  When  any  men  have  persuaded  themselves,  or  have  taken 
for  granted,  that  philosophy  might  reform  men's  manners, 
they  have  probably  taken  detached  expressions  of  philosophers, 
without  comparing  them  with  others  of  a  different  tendency. 
These  expressions,  say  they,  must,  if  duly  attended  to,  make 
men  love  virtue,  hope  for  a  future  state,  &c.  Here,  because 
they  pay  no  regard  to  opposite  passages,  they  take  for  granted 
no  one  else  will;  but  the  persons  in  question  would  be  sus- 

325  pended    between    opposite   authorities.       However    great    one 
authority  may  be,  another  equally  great  may   destroy  all  its 
efficacy  ;  and  it  requires  as  much  strength  of  mind,  or  nearly, 
to  determine  amidst  contending   arguments,   as  to  invent   the 
truth   originally.     Perhaps   no    sect  affirmed   the   reality  of  a 
future  state  so  positively  as  the  Epicureans  denied  it. 

But,  in  forsaking  vices,  the  heathens  had  not  only  human 
authorities  to  reconcile,  but  divine.  Gods  might  protect 
virtues,  but  gods  also  protected  vices.  If  men  were  to  be  in 
duced  to  hold  in  low  esteem  the  divine  protection  given  to 
vices,  it  could  not  well  fail  but  they  must  esteem  lightly  also 
the  divine  protection  given  to  virtues.  So  that  the  protection 
of  the  gods  would  come  to  be  of  little  weight  in  moral  delibe 
rations. 

How  far  philosophy  is  likely  to  make  men  forsake  their 
vices,  seems  to  have  been  tried  in  the  Augustan  age.  Had 
the  Christian  religion  been  published  in  an  unimproved  age, 
or  amongst  barbarians5,  it  might  have  been  urged,  that  it 
was  needless,  for  that  improvements  in  other  things  would 
have  brought  on  improvements  in  manners.  But  when, 
amidst  all  the  refinements  of  the  Augustan  age,  the  religion 
was  idolatry,  with  many  vicious  rites,  and  the  manners  were 
such  as  Horace  and  St.  Paul6  describe  them,  there  was  little 
to  be  hoped  for  without  some  supernatural  aid.  About  eight 
years  ago  (Nov.  7,  1780)  Dr.  Cooke\  Provost  of  King's 
College,  made  a  remark  to  me,  in  conversation,  which  may 
shew,  that  as  much  was  to  be  expected  from  the  Augustan 
age  as  from  any.  The  knowledge  of  the  whole  world,  which 
had  been  collected  in  preceding  ages,  is  to  be  found,  he  said, 

326  in  the  Roman  writers  of  the  Augustan  age.     All  the  philoso 
phy  in  Cicero  (particularly  the  Grecian)  ;  all  the  general  and 
ideal  beauty  and  perfection  (these  are  my  words)  in  Virgil ;  all 

5  See  before,  Chap.  xvi.  sect.  3.  6  Rom.  i.  20,  &c.     Col.  iii.  5,  0,  7. 

7  Dean  of  Ely. 


232  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  [I.  xix.   ]  3,   14. 

the  active  life  in  Horace.  I  probably  do  not  do  justice  to  I. 
the  observation  ;  but  if,  with  these  advantages,  the  Augustan 
age  did  not  hinder  men  from  being  extremely  vicious,  it  seems 
as  if  we  might  fairly  conclude,  that  mere  philosophy  is  un 
equal  to  the  work.  This  is  not  denying  the  possibility  of 
greater  effects  arising  from  philosophy ;  that  has  been  allowed 
in  section  3d  ;  it  is  only  reasoning,  by  analogy,  from  what 
has  been  tried  and  observed ;  but  then  it  is  on  such  reasoning 
as  this  that  all  our  hopes,  expectations,  undertakings,  must 
in  human  life  be  founded. 

13.  The  next  thing  to  be  observed  is,  that  philosophy 
is  incapable  of  ensuring  remission  of  punishment.     Men  can 
not  be  made  secure  as  to  this  point,  without  some   particular 
declaration  from  heaven.      Remission  must  depend  on  the  will 
of  the  Judge  or  Sovereign ;  and  he  only  can  declare  his  own 
purposes.      If  we  attempt  to  judge  from  what  we  behold,  by 
analogy,  we  shall  find  difficulty  in  determining  that  God   will 
forgive.     Will   God   never   punish    except   when   punishment 
will  promote  the  reformation  of  the  offender  ?  yes ;   we  suffer 
for  intemperance,  after  we  have1   ceased  to   be  intemperate. 
This  could  not  be,  if  every  man  was  certainly  to  be  forgiven 
who  did  not  want  reformation.     Will  God  forgive  because  he 
is  good  ?  then  he  would  never  punish ;  for  he  is  always  good. 
Punishment,  in  every  instance,  answers  the  end  of  publishing 
the  displeasure  of  God  against  sinful  conduct,  and  shews  his 
mode  of  restraining  it. 

14.  Philosophy  is,  moreover,  unlikely  to  provide  effectual  327 
means   of  promoting  right  conduct  in  the  generality   of  the 
people.      Right  conduct  must  be  produced  by  right  speculative 
principles  or  doctrines,    and  by   good  practical  aids  and  ex 
pedients.     Now,   it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  ordinary  men 
can  examine  into  the  grounds  of  all  the  notions  they  act  from  : 
they2   must  take   their  opinions  partly  upon  the  authority  of 
others.      They  may  form  some  judgment  of  the  comparative 
merit  of  different  doctrines,  but  a  very  imperfect  one :   they 
must  proceed,  in  a  good  measure,  according  to  their  opinions 

of  the  persons  from  whom  they  receive  advice.  The  people 
have  very  little  intercourse  with  philosophers ;  it  is  only  the 
wealthy  that  have  that  privilege :  and  philosophers,  separate 


j   vcrsal  Principle  of  Religion.    My  Poem 
Dr.  Powells  3d  Charge.     Leland on 


Lord   Herbert  of  Cherbury's  4th  Uni 


on  Redemption. 

2  Dr.  Balguy.  Charge  V.  p.  255,  8vo. 


I.  xix.  14.]  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  233 

I.  and  disunited,  want  influence,  at  least  to  occasion  any  thing  of 
an  uniformity ;  and  yet  uniformity  is  one  chief  thing  which 
makes  good  principles  readily  accepted,  and  good  moral  expe 
dients  effectual.  There  is  another  thing.  No  devotion  can 
arise  from  doubt;  that  is,  from  fluctuating  opinions: — not  even 
private  devotion,  much  less  social.  A  man  must  have  some 
settled  religious  notions,  which  shall  be  taken  for  true,  ere  his 
devout  affections  will  have  any  force  or  fervour.  Doubt  may 
arise,  either  from  the  abstruseness  of  a  doctrine,  or  from  its 
being  much  disputed ;  and  it  is  not  likely  that  philosophers 
should  furnish  settled  notions,  in  which  the  mind  of  the  reli 
gious  man  would  acquiesce.  They  have  been  too  ignorant  to 
be  free  from  grounds  of  doubt,  each  in  his  own  mind  ;  too 
much  divided  to  join  their  influence — too  weak  to  enforce. 
They  seem  to  have  had  a  consciousness  of  something  of  this 
328  sort,  by  the  many  expressions  they  have  thrown  out,  in  the 
way  of  3  wishing  for  some  revelation,  or  of  having  recourse  to 
some  heavenly  instruction. 

But,  supposing  philosophers  willing  to  teach  the  people, 
and  even  to  teach  the  same  thing,  yet  the  kind  of  instruction 
they  would  naturally  use  would  be,  in  a  great  measure,  inef 
fectual.  It  would  be  too  speculative,  abstracted,  delicate,  pro 
found  :  it  would  not  enlighten  a  common  understanding,  much 
less  warm  the  heart. 

Particularly,  it  seems  highly  probable  that  philosophers 
would  chiefly  ground  their  exhortations  on  moral  principles ; 
whereas  religious  principles  are  by  much  the  best  adapted  to 
influence  the  generality  ;  as  being  most  simple,  most  strong, 
and  most  nearly  allied  to  those  principles  on  which  ordinary 
persons  act  habitually  in  common  life.  I  am  not  certain  how 
far  any  philosopher  has  ever  taught  virtue  upon  religious 
motives :  pleasing  the  gods  by  sacrifices  has  been  common,  and 
so  has  averting  their  anger;  but  a  lustration  is  a  different  thing 
from  a  course  of  virtue.  If  we  would  have  a  more  particular 
conception  of  this  matter,  we  must  distinguish  virtue  from 
religion,  and  compare  the  efficacy  of  one  with  that  of  the 
other.  He  who  performs  his  duties  from  any  principle  which 
extends  not  beyond  mankind,  acts  from  motives  of  virtue, 
whether  he  speaks  of  rectitude,  honour,  benevolence,  prudence, 
moral  sense,  the  general  good,  the  law  of  nature,  or  the  fitness 

3  See  Clarke's  Evidences,  Prop.  6  and  7;  and  Gibson's  second  Pastoral  Letter, 
pp.  74,  100. 


234 


NEED    OF    REVELATION. 


[I.  xix.  15. 


of  things :  he  who  performs  his  duties  from  any  view  to  God,  I. 
to  pleasing  him,  gaining  rewards  from  him,  or  avoiding  his 
displeasure,  acts  from  motives  of  religion.  These  latter  set  of 
motives  seem,  in  the  first  place,  more  intelligible  than  the 
former.  I  think  it  is  evident,  that  a  person  who  attempted  to 
act  from  the  moral  motives  just  now  recited,  would  get  into  a  329 
great  deal  more  intricacy  and  perplexity,  than  one  who  had 
nothing  to  think  of  but  how  he  should  please  or  displease  a 
single  personage.  In  the  next  place,  moral  motives  seem 
much  more  easy  to  be  evaded  than  Omniscience  or  Omnipre 
sence.  And  thirdly,  moral  motives  must  act  much  less  forcibly, 
when  any  difficulties  arise,  or  strong  temptations  occur,  in  the 
performance  of  duty,  than  the  firm  expectation  of  rewards  or 
punishments,  unbounded  in  their  intensity  and  duration :  all 
this  more  especially  in  the  case  of  persons  of  more  ordinary 
and  contracted  apprehensions.  Moreover,  religious  principles 
do  not  preclude  moral  ones.  On  the  contrary,  religious  affec 
tions  strengthen  love  of  merited  praise,  sense  of  honour, 
beauty,  harmony,  enlarged  prudence ;  and  they  tend  to  refine 
benevolence :  which,  of  itself,  may  suffice  to  shew  the  weakness 
of  Lord  ShaftesburyV  objections  to  religious  motives. 

15.  But  right  conduct  among  the  people  depends  not  only 
on  right  opinions,  notions,  doctrines ;  but  also  upon  good 
practical  aids  and  expedients.  I  conceive  the  chief  of  these 
to  be  religious  society,  or  men's  being  united  in  religious  wor 
ship,  and  in  receiving  instruction,  and  in  a  course  of  discipline. 
The  nature  and  ends  of  religious  society  will  be  considered  in 
our  third  book  ;  but  we  are,  from  the  experience  of  common 
life,  enough  acquainted  with  its  benefits  to  proceed  in  our 
present  reasoning2.  Now,  from  what  quarter  should  we  ex 
pect  any  good  religious  institution  of  the  social  kind  ?  if  from 
any,  (except  Revelation),  it  must  be  from  the  wisdom  of  civil  330 
legislation  ;  but,  useful  as  we  now  know  social  religion  to  be  to 
states  and  kingdoms,  it  is  unlikely  that  any  state  should, 
merely  by  its  own  internal  wisdom,  have  instituted  a  good 
church,  with  right  provisions,  laws,  religious  exercises,  and 
discipline.  Politicians  would  scarce  think  of  such  a  thing: 
they  would  be  intent  upon  wars,  alliances,  commerce,  taxation, 
and  perhaps  on  public  edifices,  and  the  commodious  passage  of 


J   Leland's  View,  Letter  0. 
2  A  short  account  of  the  benefit  of  a 
Christian  church  even  to  natural  reli 


gion,  may  be  seen  in  Butler's  Analogy, 
Part  ii.  Chap.  1,  paragraph  beginning 
"  Farther." 


I.  xix.  16.] 


NEED    OF    REVELATION. 


235 


331 


travellers  and  useful  commodities  from  one  place  to  another ; 
but  it  is  not  likely  that  they  should  see  the  importance  of 
a  good  ecclesiastical  society  even  to  themselves,  much  less  that 
they  should  treat  it  as  being,  on  its  own  account,  the  most 
important  institution  that  could  be  maintained.  No ;  religious 
society,  however  important,  must  be  expected  first  from  reli 
gious  zeal,  though,  when  so  instituted,  the  state  may  court  its 
alliance3. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  and  have  been  heathen 
priests,  but  their  cares  seem  to  have  been  confined  to  exter 
nals.  I  do  not  remember  that  they  have  had  a  superintendence 
over  the  hearts  and  internal  principles;  or  that  they  have  at 
tempted  to  maintain  any  moral  or  religious  discipline4.  I 
should  conceive,  that,  if  they  had  attempted  any  thing  of  this 
kind,  they  would  have  run  into  dissensions;  they  could  not  well 
have  been  orderly  and  settled  enough  in  religion  and  morals  to 
have  made  experiments,  and  founded  improvements  upon  them. 

16.  We  now  come  to  consider  the  tendency  of  the  Chris 
tian  Revelation  to  answer  these  ends,  which  mere  philosophy 
seems  so  unlikely  to  answer. 

It  corrects  errors,  both  religious  and  moral,  in  a  bold  and 
authoritative  manner ;  which  is  the  manner  most  likely  to  be 
effectual,  when  the  hearer  is  not  very  inattentive ;  and  it  is  the 
manner  best  suited  to  excite  attention.  Though  some  of  the 
Christian  doctrines  are  abstruse,  yet  they  are  of  such  a  nature 
that  the  mind  may  acquiesce  in  them  :  they  arise  out  of  divine 
declarations  concerning  the  Divine  Nature.  These  must  be 
ever  indistinct  to  man,  but  they  may  be  accepted.  And  as  to 
prejudices,  there  is  no  way  so  likely  to  overcome  them  as 
overturning  at  once  the  whole  system  of  erroneous  notions ; 
prejudice  cannot  stand  against  such  an  attack  as  that:  it  sup 
poses  a  continuance  of  that  condition  to  which  men  have  been 
habituated.  Revelation  puts  men  into  a  condition  wholly  new. 
Besides,  when  such  a  system  as  the  Christian  is  proposed,  it 
does  not  leave  the  mind  void  of  principles;  but  immediately 
substitutes  Christian  principles  in  the  room  of  heathen  :  it 
cures  errors  by  substituting  Christian  principles;  and  those 
such  as  fill  the  whole  mind,  and  occupy  the  whole  attention. 


3  Neckar  has  written  a  book  on  the 
benefits  of  religion  to  a  state. 

4  The  Ancyran  monument  is  mentioned 
in  Apthorpe's  Letters,  p.  387.    This  mo 


nument  looks  as  if  Augustus's  care  of 
churches  had  been  confined  to  buildings  ; 
but  I  do  not  feel  as  if  I  had  considered 
this  subject  enough. 


236 


NEED    OF    REVELATION. 


[I.  xix.  16. 


The  Christian  Revelation  has  certainly  a  very  strong  ten-  I. 
dency  to  cure  men  of  their  vices,  and  is  as  likely  to  do  it  as 
any  thing  that  can  be  imagined.  Its  miracles  must  have  been 
astonishing ;  and,  when  it  has  been  preached  in  a  forcible  man 
ner,  it  has  shewn  itself  wonderfully  powerful — "  l  sharper  than 
any  two-edged  sword."  Felix  trembled  at  it ;  and  it  seems  to 
provide  some  admirable  means  for  preventing  relapses;  particu 
larly  confession,  prayer,  and  renewal  of  the  baptismal  covenant. 

Besides,  it  acts  with  such  efficacy  on  the  whole  inward 
frame,  by  its  miracles,  prophecies,  and  promises  and  threats  all 
together,  that  the  moral  sense  does  not  seem  to  require  so  332 
gradual  a  growth  as  in  a  state  merely  natural.  If  any  man 
should  deny  or  question  this,  yet  he  cannot  well  deny  that 
Christianity  gives  the  moral  sense  a  right  direction ;  and,  as  it 
teaches  us  to  know,  so  it  teaches  us  to  approve  things*  excel 
lent.  And,  what  is  remarkable,  the  more  we  improve,  the 
more  excellent  does  Christianity  appear  in  this  respect3;  in 
teaching  us  and  making  us  love  more  and  more  perfect  virtue. 
What  shall  we  say  ?  if  Christianity  was  low,  mean,  narrow,  we 
should  discover  its  meanness,  narrowness,  as  we  improved ;  but 
the  more  we  improve,  the  more  are  we  struck  with  the  excel 
lence  and  comprehensive  nature  of  the  virtue  which  it  recom 
mends  ;  and  all  that  its  enemies  can  say  is,  that  reason  would, 
upon  trial,  have  recommended  the  same.  It  seems  to  improve 
our  moral  sense,  by  putting  us  upon  cultivating  chiefly  those 
virtues  which  give  us  a  right  turn,  and  make  us  open  to 
perpetual  improvement. 

It  neither  sets  forth  men  nor  gods  as  protectors  of  vice4. 

As  to  the  remission  of  punishment,  it  is  published  (on 
reasonable  conditions)  plainly,  and  repeatedly5;  insomuch  that 
preaching  Christianity  is  sometimes  called  preaching  repent 
ance  and  remission  of  sins :  and  it  is  made  a  very  strong 
motive  to  mutual  forgiveness  in  ()men.  To  say  more  on  that 
head  is  needless;  because  the  heathens  acknowledged  this  as  a 
peculiarity  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  contrived  by  misre 
presentation  (as  if  Christianity  forgave  every  crime  without  333 
conditions)  to  make  it  a  subject7  of  reproach.  Neither  can  it 


1  Heb.  iv.  12.  2  Phil.  i.  10. 

3  Before,  Chap.  xiii.  sect.  13. 

4  Psalm   L.  21,      "  Thou    thoughtest 
wickedly  that  I  am  even  such  an  one  as 
thyself." 


5  Gibson's    second    Pastoral    Letter, 
p.  11J),  where  is  a  collection  of  texts  to 
this  purpose. 

6  Ephes.  iv.  32. 

7  Lard.  Works,  vol.  ix.  pp.  3o,  36. 


I.  xix.  16.] 


NEED    OF    REVELATION. 


237 


I.  be  necessary  to  explain  particularly  the  need,  which  men  have 
of  Revelation,  in  this  respect :  every  man  feels  himself  ac 
countable,  whatever  be  the  cause  of  such  feeling ;  and  it  is  in 
vain  to  expect  that  men  of  virtue  and  religion  can  ever  be 
upon  a  footing  satisfactory  to  themselves,  if  they  are  unsettled 
in  their  minds  as  to  the  forgiveness  of  those  offences  of  which 
they  must  be  conscious. 

Lastly,  the  Christian  religion  seems  to  make  good  pro 
vision  for  the  generality  of  the  people,  considered  in  contra 
distinction  to  the  learned  or  philosophical8  :  and  this,  both 
in  respect  of  speculation  and  practice.  It  gives  doctrines 
on  authority,  divine  and  human,  which  men  are  not  required 
(if  they  are  able)  to  see  the  grounds  of  thoroughly ;  yet 
they  have  a  liberty  of  thinking  for  themselves,  as  far  as 
their  education  and  opportunities  will  allow.  They  are  taught 
carefully,  by  ministers  appointed  from  the  first  rise  of  Chris 
tianity,  and  have  much  intercourse  with  their  teachers,  who 
have  influence  over  them ;  partly  as  being  members  of  a 
body  of  ministers  who  all  teach  the  same  thing.  They 
have  indeed  sometimes  doctrines  proposed  to  them  which 
are  above  their  comprehension  ;  but,  when  this  is  allowed,  it 
does  not  excite  doubt  or  perplexity:  their  notions  are  enough 
settled  for  all  the  9 principal  purposes  of  religion — enough  to 
leave  their  devout  affections  free  scope. 

334  The  kind  of  instruction  which  ordinary  Christians  receive 
is  plain.  The  Scriptures  were  composed  by  ordinary  men, 
like  themselves,  filled  with  simple  precepts,  delivered  on  occa 
sions,  connected  with  facts,  which  serve  to  illustrate  them, 
and  make  them  interesting.  The  credentials  of  the  teachers 
are  also  highly  interesting ;  that  is,  rational  and  benevolent 
miracles.  The  motives  to  good  conduct  offered  by  Chris 
tianity  are  chiefly  of  the  religious  sort,  "perfecting  holi 
ness  in  the  fear  of  God10,"  and  some  peculiarly  powerful, 
one  might  almost  say,  irresistible;  yet  they  are  mixed  with 
noble  and  beautiful  morality.  Some  motives  are  peculiar  to 


8  "The  poor  have  the  Gospel  preached 
unto  them."   Matt.xi.5.    Compare  Isai. 
Lxi.  1. 

9  End  of  Dr.  Powell's  first  Charge. 
What  he  says  of  systems  of   divines, 
seems  still  more  applicable  to  systems 
of  philosophers — that    they  have    more 
points    which    may   be   strictly   called 


doubtful  than  the  Scriptures;  though 
the  Scriptures  have  more  points  unde 
termined.  In  doubtful  points,  we  have 
powerful  reasons  on  both  sides;  in  the 
undetermined  we  have  no  reasons  on 
either  side ;  and  therefore  no  burden 
some  employment  for  the  mind. 
"'  2  Cor.  vii.  1. 


238  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  [I.  xix.    l6. 

Christianity,   such    as   our   being   bought  with  a  price1,  our   I. 
bodies  being    the   temples    of  the    Holy  Ghost,  the  love  of 
God  in  giving2  his  Son  to  die   for  us ;   and  so  forth :    and 
it  is  of  the  greatest  moment,  that  life   and  immortality  are 
brought  to  light  by  the  Gospel. 

The  Christian  religion,  moreover,  provides  good  practical 
expedients  for  maintaining  a  spirit  of  religion;  indeed,  mo 
tives  may  be  considered  in  that  number,  perhaps  as  well 
as  in  the  class  of  opinions  or  doctrines.  It  has  been  here 
observed  (sect.  15)  that  even  civil  laws  are  unlikely  to  form 
a  good  religious  establishment  of  the  social  kind ;  but  Christ 
formed  his  disciples  into  a  church3,  or  society,  instituting 
only  a  very  small  number  of  positive  duties,  expressive,  to 
persons  of  all  nations  and  languages,  of  the  principal  dis 
tinguishing  truths  of  his  religion.  His  Apostles  laboured  to 
form  local  societies,  providing,  as  well  as  possible,  for  instruc-  335 
tion,  devotion,  and  discipline :  making  regulations,  yet  not 
precluding  improvements. 

Well  then  might  Justin  Martyr  say,  after  examining  as 
a  philosopher  all  sects  of  philosophy,  and  leaving  them  all 
for  Christianity,  Tavrqv  /JLOVYJV  evpicncov  <j)i\o(To(f)iav  d(r<pa\rj 

T6    KCtl     OrV/UL(f>OpOV4. 

But,  as  we  are  mentioning  all  these  things  with  a  view 
to  proving  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion,  I  would 
recommend  it  to  every  thinking  man  to  consider  the  fact 
of  Jesus^s  forming  his  disciples  into  a  regular  society,  and 
instituting  two  positive  duties  to  be  perpetual.  If  he  were 
an  impostor  how  could  he  see  the  importance  of  a  visible 
Church,  to  both  natural  and  revealed  religion  ?  how  could  he 
see  that  which  (if  we  have  reasoned  right)  lawgivers  have 
ever  been  unable  to  see  ?  But  this  must  be  left  to  every  man's 
reflexion. 

The  sum  of  our  argument  is,  if  men,  in  their  moral 
and  religious  capacities,  found  many  evils  and  defects,  if 
philosophy  was  not  likely  to  remedy  them,  if  Christianity 
has  a  tendency  to  remedy  them — we  may  fairly  presume 
that  Christianity  is  of  Divine  original. 


1  Bishop  Kurd's  Sermon  on  1  Cor.  vi. 
20.  vol.  ii.  Serm.  13. 

2  Ephes.  iv.  32. 

3  Vine,  John  xv.    Sheepfbld,  John  x. 
Feed  my  flock,  John  xxi.  15,  &c.     Lo, 
1  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end 


of  the  world,  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  These 
hints  will  be  enlarged  upon  hereafter: 
III.  xi.  4.  and  IV.  xix.  15. 

4  Quoted  by  Lardner  at  the  beginning 
of  his  account  of  Justin  Martyr,  in  his 
Credibility,  &c. 


I.  xix.  17,  18.]  NEED    OF    REVELATION. 


239 


I.  17-  One  objection  naturally  occurs,  and  the  consideration 
of  it  may  throw  light  upon  our  subject.  If  Christianity 
is  concluded  to  be  true,  because  it  was  published  where  it 
was  wanted,  why  may  we  not  conclude  it  false,  because  it 
is  not  published  where  it  is  most  wanted,  amongst  barba 
rous  nations  ?  Our  first  answer  must  be,  that  we  have  dis 
claimed  every  thing  like  entering  into  the  counsels  of  God; 
and  therefore  we  have  not  obliged  ourselves  to  take  any  notice 

336  of  .such   an   objection.      But   we  may  add,  our   ignorance  of 
any   particular   case   of  other  men,  is  no  reason  why  we  are 
mistaken  about    our   own.     One   does   me    a    favour :    I    am 
thankful  to  him :  he  withholds  the  same  favour  from  another ; 
I   do  not  see  why  ;    does  that  make  my  gratitude  needless  ? 
We  might  also  ask,  would  any  merit  be  allowed  to  a  religion 
for  improving  those  who  were  very  uncivilized  ?    but   rather 
we  may  say,  it  seems  agreeable  to  the  idea  of  human  society, 
that  a  part  of  mankind  should  have  beneficial   truths    com 
municated   to  them,   and    that    they    should    have    charge   of 
communicating  such  truths  to  others;   every  man  improving 
himself  by  instructing  his  neighbour. 

18.  But  the  best  solution  of  this  difficulty  arises  from 
considering  the  nature  of  the  Christian  revelation.  It  does 
not  seem  adapted  to  uncivilized  nations ;  it  is  of  an  improved 
nature.  Lardner  says5,  "men  must  be  rational  and  civilized, 
before  they  can  be  Christians."  Christianity  was  preceded  by 
other0  dispensations,  each  adapted  to  the  circumstances  in  which 
it  was  published.  When  Elijah  called  for  fire  from7  heaven, 
he  knew  what  spirit  his  religion  was  of:  men  were  not  then 
qualified  to  be  treated  with  mildness :  but,  when  James  and 
John*  wanted  to  follow  the  precedent  of  Elijah,  they  were 
rebuked,  and  told  that  they  knew  not  what  manner  of  spirit 
they  were  of.  Different  measures,  even  of  God  himself,  are 
suited  to  different  degrees  of  civilization.  "The  fulness  of 
time"  for  Christ  to  become  man  was  not  arrived  till  the  world 
grew  civilized  ;  and,  even  after  he  asumed  human  nature,  he 

337  instructed  men  only  as  they  were  able  to  ^bear  it;    and  his 
Apostles  found  babes10  in  Christ  amongst  those  who,  as  human 
beings,  were  grown  up  to  maturity. 

It  may  be  said,  if  men  must  be  civilized  before  they  can 


5  End  of  Heathen  Testimonies.     See 
also  about  Origen,  vol.  n.  p.  464. 
"  Up.  Law's  Theory. 


7  2  Kings  i. 
»  Mark  iv.  33. 
10  1  Cor.  iii.  1,  2. 


u  Lukeix.  51. 


249  NEED    OF    RKVELATIOJC.  [I.  xix.   1.9- 

be  Christians,  what  use  is  there  in  our  Society  for  propagating  I. 
the  Gospel  ?  The  general  views  of  that  society  seem  rational ; 
we  need  not  defend  every  particular  measure.  We  ought  to 
be  instrumental  in  spreading  the  benefits  of  Christianity  as 
far  as  we  are  able,  by  prudent  and  virtuous  methods.  We 
are  indeed  directed  not  to  throw  pearls  before  swine;  but  we 
may  endeavour  to  civilize  those  who  are  capable  of  improve 
ment,  with  a  view  to  making  them  Christians  afterwards.  Those 
able  prelates  who  have  preached  at  the  solemn  meetings  of 
this  society  have  not  been  averse  to  such  a  plan.  It  has  been 
wished  that  a  few  children  of  the  uncivilized  could  be  taught 
"agriculture,  economy,  order1  and  government,"  from  their 
youth,  and  that  they  should  teach  others  of  their  own  tribes. 
Their  religion  might  be  in  the  Christian  form,  and  they  might 
be  shewn  Christian  virtues ;  though  at  first  they  would  know 
its  doctrines  only  by  rote,  and  would  not  be  sensible  of  its 
excellence.  As  they  grew  more  civilized,  they  would  see  more 
of  its  meaning  and  of  its  worth,  (which  indeed  may  be  the 
case  of  the  most  improved  amongst  men,)  and  at  length  they 
might  become  such  both  in  civilization  and  in  knowledge  of 
Christianity,  as  those  to  whom  the  Christian  religion  was  first 
published.  It  is  our  wish  and  hope  that  Christianity  may 
extend  to  all  mankind.  Lardner  believed2,  that,  if  no  prin 
ciples  of  persecution  had  prevailed  (either  amongst  heathens  or  338 
Christians)  the  religion  of  Christ  would,  by  this  time,  have 
been  the  universal  religion.  We  may  say,  without  contra 
dicting  him,  only  taking  the  matter  up  higher,  that  the  most 
likely  method  to  make  it  such,  must  be,  to  offer  it  first  to 
those  who  were  most  civilized,  and  to  engage  them  gradually 
to  civilize  others,  by  way  of  preparing  them  for  giving  it  a 
due  reception. 

19.  Considering  other  objections  would  probably  still 
farther  illustrate  our  subject,  and  justify  our  method  of  reasoning 
from  fact.  Indeed,  though  such  reasoning  affords  only  a  pro 
bable  presumption,  strong  enough  to  act  upon,  yet  it  may 
appear. to  some  best  adapted  to  answer  objections.  It  is  cer 
tainly  well  adapted  to  that  purpose.  Though  we  can  with 
probability,  yet  we  cannot  without  diffidence,  say,  that  God 
gave  men  Revelation,  in  order  to  remedy  the  moral  and  reli 
gious  evils  under  which  they  laboured  ;  but,  if  any  one  objects 

1  Bp.  Lowth's  Serm.  pp.  22,  23.    Bp.  Law's  Theory,  pp,  2(5,  27,  4th  edit. 

2  Works,  vol.  iv.  p,  181. 


I.  Xix.   lp.]  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  241 

I.  to  Christianity,  as  a  superfluous,  needless  dispensation,  we  can 
much  more  confidently  affirm  that  such  objection  is  not  well- 
grounded.  Does  any  one  allege  that  men  would  have  found 
out  their  duty,  and  the  way  to  happiness,  without  it  ?  we 
dare  reply,  that  such  a  thing  was  not  to  be  expected.  Is  it 
presumed,  that  after  men  had  got  in  any  degree  enlightened 
they  would  never  have  run  back  into  error  or  vice  ?  we  do 
not  scruple  to  pronounce  such  a  presumption  vain  and  irra 
tional. 

This  is  a  different  thing  from  professing  to  know  the 
situation  of  things  when  Christianity  was  first  published,  so 
that  we  could  positively  say  beforehand,  that  God  must  publish 
such  a  religion  ;  or  that  he  could  not  leave  men  to  their  natural 
faculties.  It  is  different  from  saying,  that,  in  fact,  he  did 
339  not  leave  them  their  choice  about  accepting  his  religion;  or  even 
from  affirming  positively,  that  what  improvements  we  can 
observe  were  solely  owing  to  Christianity,  or  owing  to  it  in 
any  certain  degree.  To  say,  that  the  wisdom  or  goodness  of 
God  must  produce  such  an  effect,  is  talking  the  language  of 
Gods ;  to  refer  a  blessing  actually  received  to  the  Divine 
Wisdom,  or  Goodness,  is  talking  the  language  of  men.  We 
could  not  say,  that  the  goodness  of  God  would  be  the  cause 
of  our  having  a  sense  of  beauty  or  sublimity  ;  but,  when  we 
have  such  perceptions,  we  can  say,  that  we  owe  them  to  the 
Divine  Goodness. 

Bishop  Butler  makes  use  of  reasoning  from  fact  to  answer 
objections  against  Christianity3;  shewing  that  the  same  sort  of 
things  happen  in  a  course  of  nature,  which  are  objected  to  in 
revealed  religion  ;  yet  he  does  not  pretend  that  he  could  have 
told  beforehand  that  such  things  would  happen,  in  either  the 
one  or  the  other.  This  seems  a  perfect  defence  of  Christianity, 
as  to  any  particular  objection  ;  because  all  we  want  to  prove  is, 
that  Christianity  comes  from  the  Author  of  nature;  and,  if 
the  same  thing  happens  in  a  course  of  nature,  then  Chris 
tianity  may  come  from  the  Author  of  nature,  notwithstanding 
that  objection. 

One  objection  it  may  be  very  proper  to  conceive  to  be 
made.  If  reasoning  from  fact  is  suitable  to  the  narrow  views 
of  man,  why  should  we  not  adopt  Mr.  Hume's  reasoning  from 
fact  ?  why  is  it  commonly  blamed  ?  I  mean,  that  about  a  par- 

3  See  the  close  of  the  Introd.  to  his  Analogy. 

VOL.  I.  16 


242 


NEED    OF    REVELATION. 


[I.  xix.  19. 


ticular  providence,  and  a  future  state.  In  his  Essay  on  that  I. 
subject,  he  argues,  that  we  have  no  right  to  call  God  perfectly  340 
good,  so  long  as  there  is  any  evil  in  fact  existing.  God  is  the 
cause,  and  can  only  be  known  by  effects ;  whatever  evil  there 
fore  is  found  in  fact  must  be  charged  to  him,  and  his  goodness 
must  be  allowed  to  receive  a  diminution  or  abatement,  propor 
tioned  to  that  evil.  The  fault  of  the  argument  seems  to  be, 
that  it  does  not  distinguish  between  necessary  evil,  and  un 
necessary  ;  between  what  must  be,  and  what  is.  All  evil  that 
must  be,  all  that  is  necessary,  or  unavoidable,  is  to  be  referred 
or  ascribed  to  the  First  Cause ;  but  all  evil  that  is  unnecessary 
or  avoidable,  should  be  ascribed  to  those  who  might  avoid  it, 
and  do  not.  If  I  were  to  drink  a  pint  of  strong  spirituous 
liquor  at  a  draught,  it  would  give  me  great  pain,  and  perhaps 
bring  on  a  lasting  disorder ;  but  surely  no  one  would  ascribe 
that  pain  to  God,  as  its  cause,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  I 
could  not  have  avoided  it.  If  men  therefore  bring  on  them 
selves  a  part  of  the  evil  they  suffer,  that  part  ought  not  to 
be  charged  on  God,  so  as  to  lessen  the  goodness  of  God  in 
our  estimation.  And,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  all  the  evil 
which  mankind  suffers  might  be  avoided  by  mankind  (which  I 
believe  to  be  the  case2,  supposing  mankind  to  act  unitedly,  and 
for  any  length  of  time),  then  mankind  ought  to  acknowledge 
the  goodness  of  God  to  be  perfect. 

But  has  this  distinction,  it  may  be  said,  been  made  here,  in 
reckoning  up  the  evils  which  Christianity  is  likely,  and  philo 
sophy  unlikely,  to  cure  ?  that  is,  has  a  distinction  been  always 
kept  in  view  between  evils  which  are,  and  evils  which  must  be  ? 
It  has  not ;  because  in  some  cases  the  distinction  is  wanted,  in  341 
others  it  is  not.  When  we  are  speaking  of  the  cause  of  any 
evil,  the  distinction  should  not  be  forgotten;  when  of  the 
remedy,  it  need  not  be  attended  to;  except  indeed  we  are 
speaking  of  the  application  of  the  remedy,  as  a  voluntary  act. 
If  we  were  speaking  of  the  cause  and  origin  of  the  moral  and 
religious  evils  of  the  heathen  world,  we  should  settle  how  far 
they  were  unavoidable,  how  far  voluntary ;  but  as  we  speak 
only  of  the  remedy,  that  is,  Revelation,  we  may  neglect  that 


1  Essays,  vol.  u.  8vo.  The  observa 
tion  extends  to  his  Posthumous  Diah)(/Ht'x. 
See  Chap.  iv.  of  this  Book,  sect.  4.  This 
argument  was  mentioned  there,  but  with 
out  any  relation  to  the  goodness  of  God, 
or  the  existence  of  evil. 


2  At  least,  men  might  keep  approxi 
mating  to  a  perfect  freedom  from  evil. 
The  evils  of  imperfection  or  defect  are 
cured  by  a  full  sense  of  their  being  un 
avoidable  ;  that  is,  when  that  sense  is 
fully  settled,  defects  no  longer  give  pain. 


I.  xix.   19.]  NEED    OF    REVELATIOX.  243 

I.  difference.  It  matters  much,  as  to  the  proof  of  the  Divine 
goodness,  whether  the  errors  and  vices  of  the  heathens  were 
necessary,  or  owing  to  themselves  ;  but  it  is  of  little  significance 
with  regard  to  the  benefits  of  Revelation.  If  a  man  fractures 
a  limb  you  apply  the  best  remedy,  without  inquiring  whether 
the  fracture  was  owing  to  his  own  fault  or  not ;  though  after 
wards  you  may  make  such  inquiry,  and  his  character  may  be 
affected  by  it. 

Cicero  says3,  in  the  character  of  Cotta,  the  academic,  or 
sceptic,  "  Si,  consensu  omnium  philosophorum,  sapientiam 
nemo  assequitur,  in  summis  malis  omnes  sumus,  quibus  vos 
optime  consultum  a  Diis  immortalibus  dicitis :  nam,  ut  nihil 
interest  utrum  nemo  valeat,  an  nemo  possit  valere;  sic  non 
intelligo  quid  intersit,  utrum  nemo  sit  sapiens,  an  nemo  esse 
possit"  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  commends  this  passage1,  but,  I 
imagine,  without  perceiving  how  it  might  be  misapplied:  it 
professedly  rejects  all  distinction  between  necessary  and  volun 
tary  evil ;  it  is  the  argument  of  a  sceptic  endeavouring  to  con 
found  all  that  Balbus,  the  Stoic,  had  been  urging.  Dr.  Clarke 
himself  applies  it  rightly,  that  is,  when  the  question  is  about 
342  the  remedy  of  evil ;  but,  by  his  unqualified  manner  of  com 
mending  it,  he  seems  not  to  perceive,  that,  if  it  was  admitted 
in  all  cases,  it  would  destroy  the  proof  of  the  Divine  benevo 
lence  a  posteriori.  But,  of  the  argument  a  posteriori  we  have 
spoken  in  the  4th  Chapter  of  this  Book ;  and  we  needed  not  to 
have  made  our  present  observation,  (though  it  is  somewhat 
different  from  that  made  before,)  if  Dr.  Clarke's  commendation 
had  not  related  to  our  present  subject. 

I  am  unwilling  to  close  this  chapter  without  some  men 
tion  of  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  as  he  was  one  of  the  most 
eminent,  and  I  believe  the  first,  of  the  persons  called  deists ; 
and  as  his  reasonings  are  directed  to  prove  the  contrary  of 
what  we  have  been  proving  in  the  present  chapter,  that  there 
was  need  of  Revelation.  He  flourished  about  the  middle  of 
the  last  century,  and  was  a  man  of  literature.  He  published 
several  works,  but  I  shall  confine  myself  to  his  five  short 
notices,  mentioned  in  different  parts  of  his  works,  which  he 
says  God  has  inscribed  on  the  minds  of  all  men,  and  which 
render  all  Revelation  unnecessary.  I  take  these  from  Leland5, 
not  having  Lord  Herbert's  Book  de  Religione6  Gentilium  at 

3  De  Natura  Deorum,  iii.  32.  I   and  Prop.  7.  marg.  reference,  p.  6/0,  fol. 

4  Evidences,  near  the  end  of  Prop.  6,   |       5  Letter  I.  p.  3.  6  Cap.  15.  init. 

16 — 2 


244  NEED    OF    JIEVELATION.  [I.  xix.   1Q. 

hand: — "  1.  That  there  is  one  supreme  God.  2.  That  he  is  I. 
chiefly  to  be  worshipped.  3.  That  piety  and  virtue  is  the 
principal  part  of  his  worship.  4.  That  we  must  repent  of  our 
sins ;  and,  if  we  do  so,  God  will  pardon  them.  5.  That  there 
are  rewards  for  good  men,  and  punishments  for  bad  men,  in  a 
future  state."  Much  might  be  said  upon  these  articles ;  but, 
after  what  I  have  already  said  on  the  several  subjects  of  them, 
I  will  not  enlarge  in  this  place.  On  the  first  and  second  of 
them  taken  jointly,  it  seems  only  needful  to  remark,  that, 
before  Christianity,  we  know  of  no  people,  except  the  Jews, 
who  worshipped  "  one  Supreme  God,"  and  him  only ;  which  343 
the  expression  seems  to  imply.  A  mere  preference  of  one  God 
is  trifling;  not  likely  to  be  inscribed  on  the  minds  of  all  men. 
Only  the  Jews  acknowledged  both  the  unity  and  spirituality 
of  God,  and  their  religion  was  revealed.  Had  only  the  lowest 
of  the  heathen  people  run  into  polytheism  and  idolatry,  it 
would  be  enough  for  us,  because  these  notices  are  said  to  be 
inscribed  on  the  minds  of  all  men :  but  the  highest  ran  into 
them,  as  well  as  the  lowest.  We  have  before  spoken1  of  Pliny 
and  Julian ;  we  may  now  add  the  Emperor  2Augustus  to  the 
number.  3.  If  piety  and  virtue  are  declared,  to  the  minds  of 
all  men,  to  be  the  principal  parts  of  Divine  worship,  the  decla 
ration  must  mean  rational  piety,  and  improved  virtue — not  the 
virtue  of  a  savage.  How  then  could  it  happen  that  the  piety 
of  millions  should  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  every  man's 
common  reason  ?  and  the  very  ceremonies  of  worship  so  im 
pure,  in  several  cases,  as  to  be  inconsistent  with  every  system 
of  morals?  not  to  mention  again  the  enormities  into  which 
even  philosophers  permitted  men  to  run.  But  the  chief  part 
of  divine  worship  amongst  pagans  has  consisted  of  modes  of 
appeasing  and  conciliating  deities,  without  piety  and  virtue. 
What  Balak  says,  Micah  vi.  6,  7,  may  be  looked  upon  as  the 
general  inquiry  of  idolaters.  4.  That  God  will  forgive  men, 
upon  repentance,  has  been  proved  to  be  a  thing  unknown  to 
the  heathens :  they  themselves  reproached  Christianity  with 
publishing  such  a  doctrine;  and  the  Christian  religion  places 
remission  upon  a  foundation  which  was  not  discoverable  by 
natural  reason — I  mean,  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ.  5.  A 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments  was  by  no  means  344 
universally  allowed  :  we  have  already  said,  that  the  Epicureans, 

1  Chap.  xii.  sects.  16  and  17. 

9  See  Apthorpe's  Letters,  p.  345;  and  Hume's  Nat.  Hist,  of  Religion,  sect.  12. 


I.  xix.   19-]  NEED    OF    REVELATION.  245 

who  were  very  considerable,  denied  it  more  positively  than  any 
other  sect  affirmed  it. 

Strange  notices  these  !  or  at  least  strangely  effaced,  sup 
posing  them  to  have  been  ever  inscribed  on  the  mind  by  the 
Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world. 

I  will  say  no  more  of  Lord  Herbert,  nor  of  the  need  which 
men  have  of  Revelation.  Therefore  I  here  close  the  first 
Book :  but,  as  an  Appendix,  I  will  add  something  concerning 
the  early  Christian  sects,  or  heresies  (adeems),  as  the  allu 
sions  to  them  in  the  Scriptures  and  the  writings  of  the  Fa 
thers  are  numberless;  nor  can  the  Articles  of  any  Church 
be  understood  without  some  knowledge  of  them.  We  do  not 
want  them  yet;  but  as  remarks  on  them  are  common  to  all 
sects  of  Christians,  they  should  be  placed  here. 


[B.  I.  Append.  1 — t. 


APPENDIX. 

CONCERNING    THE    EARLY    SECTS,    OR    HERESIES,    OF 
CHRISTIANS. 


Ei7rot/i'  av  (/cat)   TOV   eTTJ/xeXtos   kvioovra  Tats   'Iouoai(r/iou    /cat   XpicrTtavior/JLOV 
aipecrea-i,  (ro(f)<oTa.TOV  X/oiaTtayoi/  yevcaQai. 

Ausim  affirmare,   ilium  esse  inter  Christianos  sapientissimum,  qui  Judaeorum 
atque  Christianorum  sectas  introspexit  diligentissime. 

ORIGENES  contra  CELSUM,  Lib.  iii.  p.  119.  ed.  Spenceri. 


1.  SOME  account  of  the  early  Sects,  or  Heresies  (aipecreis), 
of  the   Christian   Church,   is    wanted : — for   the   Scriptures, 
which  often  allude  to  them  ;  for  the  Fathers,  who  will  seem, 
more  reasonable,  the  more  we  enter  into  their  views ;   and  for 
the  confessions   of  faith   of  different   sects  of   Christians    in 
latter   times,  who  build   creeds   and   articles   upon   them,  or 
frame   declarations  with  a  design  to   contradict   or  renounce 
them. 

2.  Early  heresies,  those  the  chief  of  which  prevailed  in 
the  first  two  centuries,  may  be  ranged  into  two  classes,  Oriental 
and  Judaical. 

3.  We  begin  with  the  Oriental ;  in  the  accounts  of  which, 
given  us  by  the  ancients,  we  find  many  things  which  we  cannot 
understand,  and  many  which  we  cannot  believe.      Now,  the 
best  way  of  considering  these  will  be,  to  take  that  heresy  first 
which,  though    last1   in    point   of  time,   admits   of  the  most  34,5 
distinct2  explication,  if  it  be  not  the  most  important,   as   I 
believe  it  is ;  I  mean,  the  sect  of  Manicheans.      If  we  can  get 

a  tolerable  notion  of  that,  we  may  afterwards  get  some  of  those 
which  are  more  confused  and  imperfect.  The  common  defect 
is,  that  no  authentic  writings  (except  perhaps  a  few  fragments) 
remain,  which  have  been  published  in  support  of  them. 

4.  Let  us   then,  at  present,   treat  of  the   Manicheans ; 
considering,  i.  The  name  of  their  leader,     ii.  His  private  life. 
iii.    The   time  his  doctrines  were   spread  in  the  Roman  em 
pire,    iv.  His  works,    v.  His  followers,     vi.   His  principles  of 

1  See  Theodoret  Heret.   Fab.    t.  iv.   I   Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  234,  top. 
p.  188 ;  or  Lardner's  Her.  b.  i.  sect.  6.    |       2  Lard.  Her.  has  the  same  thought. 


B.  I.  Append.  4.]  EARLY  SECTS. 


247 


I.  natural  religion,  (including  metaphysics),  vii.  His  morality, 
viii.  His  system  of  revealed  religion,  ix.  His  mode  of  wor 
ship,  x.  His  church-government,  xi.  His  pretensions,  xii. 
His  imitators  in  later  ages. 

Several  writers  have  treated  on  this  subject — Wolfius, 
Beausobre,  Tillemont,  Cave,  Lardner,  &c.3  I  am  best  ac 
quainted  with  Lardner,  and,  in  collecting  my  observations, 
have  made  the  most  use  of  him. 

i.  The  name  of  the  leader  of  this  sect  seems  to  have  been 
Mani,  most  properly ;  he  was  a  Persian ;  and  those  who  have 
translated  from  the  Persian  have  written  his  name  in  some 
different  ways,  (Manes,  and  Manichaeus) ;  but  this  seems  the 
eastern  way.  Hyde,  in  his  History  of  the  Religion  of  the 
Ancient  Persians,  says,  "  In  omnibus  Arabum  et  Persarum 
libris,  constanter  vocatur4  Mani. 

ii.  The  history  of  Mani  is  obscure,  and  many  biographi 
cal  accounts  of  him  are  fabulous.  He  was  probably  a  painter 
and  engraver,  and  acquainted  with  other  arts,  and  with 
347  sciences.  He  was  an  astronomer,  so  as  to  have  a  notion  of 
antipodes ;  and  a  philosopher.  He  observed  phenomena  at 
tentively,  but  often  accounted  for  them  in  a  fanciful  manner : 
indeed  fancy  was,  long  after  his  time,  admitted  to  account  for 
phenomena  of  nature ;  though  not  always  a  Persian  fancy. 
Whether  he  understood  physic  is  doubful.  He  invented  a 
musical  instrument.  In  philosophizing,  he  was  bold,  schem 
ing,  dogmatical.  He  was  wealthy,  and  a  man  of  consequence 
under  three  Persian  monarchs ;  by  the  last  of  whom  he  was 
put  to  death. 

iii.  As  to  dates,  we  can  say  that  Manicheism  was  not 
known  in  the  Roman  empire  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  who  is 
placed  in  the  year  248,  and  suffered  martyrdom  in  258 ;  and 
that  it  was  known  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  which  was  held 
in  325.  So  that  it  became  known,  probably,  towards  the  close 
of  the  third  century.  Mr.  Gibbon  thinks  that  Mani  did  not 
begin  to  teach  till  the  year  2?05. 

iv.  His  works  seem  to  have  been  pretty  numerous ;  but 
they  are  now  chiefly  known  by  quotations  from  them,  made 
by  those  who  wrote  against  the  sect.  However,  there  are 
some  large  fragments.  His  principal  work  seems  to  have  been 


3  Besides  the  writers  on  heresies,  Epi- 
phanius,  Philaster,  Augustin,  Vincent; 
see  also  Cyril's  6th  Cathechesis. 


4  Hyde,  p.  281.  Hist.  Rel.  vet.  Pers. 

5  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  232.  4to. 


248  EAKLY   SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  4. 

the   Epistle  of  the  Foundation,   shewing   the   nature   of  his  I. 
sect ;    about    which    Augustin    has    written    attentively    and 
largely. 

v.  He  had  followers,  who  were  to  be  met  with  in  many 
places,  but  they  were  no  where  numerous.  Amongst  them 
were  some  bishops,  and  several  writers,  as  Faustus,  Fortu- 
natus,  Adimantus,  &c.,  but  they  were  more  plausible  than 
solid  :  they  had  no  great  erudition,  and  but  a  poor  idea  of 
criticism ;  yet  they  were  fond  of  arguing.  Possibly  they 
might  form  a  party,  in  opposition  to  some  followers  of  Zoro-  ,348 
aster,  and  take  Christianity  as  an  ally. 

vi.  The  natural  religion  of  Mani  may,  perhaps,  be  called 
the  principal  thing  relating  to  him.  How  far  it  was  original 
must  be  seen  by  accounts  of  Zoroaster,  Confucius,  Foe :  it  is 
fanciful  certainly,  but  let  us  judge  of  it  as  candidly  as  we 
are  able.  Let  us  suppose  his  principal  view  to  be,  to  clear 
God  of  being  the  author  of  evil :  I  know  not  whether  every 
thing  may  not  be  deduced  from  that  supposition,  and  it  really 
seems  a  probable  one.  Most  leaders  of  sects  mean  well  at 
bottom,  though  they  may  be  vain,  and  fond  of  their  own 
inventions. 

Evil  all  comes  from  matter,  but  God  is  good ;  originally 
therefore,  says  Mani,  there  was  one  God,  and  there  was  also 
matter,  or  hyle  (v\rj) ;  so  matter  is  the  worst  possible  thing. 
God  is  perfect,  and  Persian  perfection  must  always  have  some 
thing  to  do  with  light,  and  imperfection  with  darkness.  All  this 
seems  to  have  been  taught  in  Persia,  by  Zoroaster2,  many  ages 
before  the  time  of  Mani.  The  temple  of  the  sun  is  reckoned 
a  capital  ruin.  Mani  keeps  to  this  as  long  as  he  can,  but 
how  did  this  v\rj  or  matter  get  into  being?  The  good  God 
did  not  create  such  a  vile  thing  ;  he  would  be  the  author  of 
evil ;  nothing  else  could  create  it ;  ergo,  it  is  a  principle,  with 
out  beginning.  But  there  are  active  powers  which  produce 
evil ;  there  are  evil  passions ;  therefore  uXq  must  be  personi- 
Jied :  a  common  thing:  but  then  the  matter  v\rj  gets  con 
founded  with  the  person  v\rj,  and  afterwards  the  person  creates 
the  matter.  But  we  see  a  mixture  of  good  and  evil  in  the 
world  :  true:  this  is  light  and  its  parts,  mixed  with  darkness  349 
and  its  associates,  or  parts.  Then  good  and  evil  strive  and 

1  Cud  worth  agrees;  Lard.  Her.  i   time  of  Zoroaster  seems  doubtful:  some 

2  Hyde's  Historia  Religionis  veterum       say  he  was  as   early  as  Abraham.     He 
Persarum,   Cap.  9 ;   also  p.  295.     The    j  does  not  appear  in  Blair. 


B.  I.  Append.  4.]  EARLY  SECTS.  249 

I.  contend:  (Rom.  vii) true:  there  was  a  battle  between  the 

host  of  3light  and  the  powers  of  darkness4:  we  must  not 
expect  that  this  battle  of  Manfs  imagining  will  please  as 
much  in  plain  prose,  as  Milton's  battle  of  angels  pleases  in 
poetry.  Then,  man  has  a  soul  naturally  pure,  united  to  a 
gross  body  :  how  is  this  to  be  solved  upon  Manichean  princi 
ples  ?  why,  God  made  the  soul,  and  Satan  made  the  body ;  and 
body  tempted  soul  to  enter  in  and  dwell  there,  with  a  view 
to  sensual  delights.  For  body  seems  to  include  both  matter 
and  sensation. 

Thus,  there  is  but  one  God;  and  good  and  evil  effects 
are  instantly  resolved  into  two  causes ;  one  good,  and  the 
other  evil.  The  facts  seems  to  be  stated  fairly  enough  by 
Mani ;  but  he  does  not  think  it  needful  to  be  nice  in  his 
experiments,  made  in  order  to  account  for  them. 

vii.  This  same  hatred  of  matter  and  body  will  enable 
us  to  give  some  idea  of  the  Manichean  morality ;  for  the 
morals  of  the  Manicheans  were  very  spiritual ;  even  marriage 
was  only  tolerated,  and  not  tolerated  in  the  higher  rank,  called 
the  Elect.  Abstemiousness  and  mortification  were  as  much 
honoured  as  amongst  any  order  of  modern  monks.  If  matter 
and  body  were  such  vile  things,  all  enjoyments  of  the  senses 
must  be  vile,  and  must  be  shunned  as  much  as  possible. 

viii.  Abomination  of  matter  and  body  affected  the  revealed 
religion  professed  by  the  Manicheans.  The  Old  Testament 
tells  us,  that  God  created  matter.  Absurd  and  impossible ! 
say  the  Manicheans ;  and  so  they  reject  the  Old  Testament 
350  at  once,  wholly.  It  recommends  too  a  set  of  vile  men,  who 
indulged  some  of  their  senses!  To  be  sure  Adam  and  Eve 
were  the  first  couple ;  but  they  ran  into  corporeal  familiarity, 
and  that  was,  in  reality,  their  first  offence.  In  the  New 
Testament  some  passages  are  found  which  are  taken  out  of 
this  Old  Testament: — mere  Jewish  interpolations!  The  rest 
indeed  of  the  New  Testament  is  genuine ;  only  we  must  not 
conceive  Christ  to  have  been  a  real  man,  made  of  matter,  as 
we  are ;  his  body  (if  body  it  could  be  called)  could  not  be 
of  matter.  We  are  told  he  was  crucified,  but  his  crucifixion 
could  not  be  real,  it  must  have  been  only  apparent,  and 
mystical  ;  and  such  also  must  have  been  his  resurrection:  we 
observe  the  festival  of  Easter  to  celebrate  it  as  such.  A  body 
like  ours  can  never  be  raised  to  a  state  of  salvation. 

3  2  Cor.  xi.  14.  <  Ephes.  vi.  12.    Col.  i.  13.   2  Pet.  ii.  4.   Jude  6. 


250  EARLY  SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  4. 

The  Manichean  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  supposed  the  first   I. 
person  in  heaven1  (I  think)  ;  the  second  in  the  sun   (TO  <pws) 
as  to  his  power,  and  in  the  moon  as  to  his  wisdom ;  and  the 
third  person  in  the  air  (spiritus). 

ix.  The  Manichean  worship  was  simple ;  it  was  purposely 
made  unlike  the  heathen  worship.  The  worshippers  had 
prayer,  instructions,  and  sacraments,  but  that  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  celebrated  without  wine.  Scriptures  were  pub 
licly  read,  and  other  things,  particularly  the  Epistle  of  the 
Foundation.  Sunday  was  kept,  but  as  a  fast.  It  has  been 
said  that  this  sect  worshipped  the  sun  and  moon;  but  Lard- 
ner  supposes  that  notion  to  have  arisen  from  their  turning 
towards  the  sun  and  moon  in  their  worship ;  yet  Faustus  says 
something  like  this — <  God  forbid  that  we  should  be  ashamed 
of  worshipping  the  sacred  luminaries2.'  This  ceremony,  how-  351 
ever,  naturally  followed  from  the  idea  just  now  mentioned, 
that  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  TO  <£w9,  had  some  sort 
of  residence  in  the  sun  and  moon.  Though,  by  their  virtue 
and  religious  worship,  the  Manicheans  endeavoured  to  purify 
the  soul,  yet  they  conceived  that  it  did  not,  could  not,  get 
sufficiently  filtered  for  the  purity  of  heaven,  without  going 
through  several  transmigrations. 

x.  Most  of  what  we  have  hitherto  seen  of  the  Mani 
cheans  arose  from  their  hatred  of  matter,  and  their  idea  of  the 
vileness  of  it ;  but  their  church-government  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  founded  upon  that:  the.  ruling  aim  was,  to 
resemble  the  primitive  Church.  Mani  himself  was  the  head 
of  the  body  (not  in  any  presumptuous  or  arrogant  way,  that 
I  know  of)  ;  the  next  set  of  officers,  or  ministers,  consisted  of 
twelve  ;  these  appointed  bishops  and  presbyters,  with  deacons  to 
each.  The  great  division  of  this  ecclesiastical  body  was  into 
elect  and  auditors.  The  auditors  were  kept  separate  from  the 
elect,  though  the  elect  were  maintained  by  them.  It  has  been 
already  observed,  that  the  elect  might  not  marry  ;  the  auditors 
might,  but  marriage  in  them  was  rather  tolerated  than  com 
mended.  Augustin  was  once  an  auditor  amongst  the  Mani 
cheans,  but  never  one  of  the  elect ;  yet  he  seems  to  me  to  con 
trovert  points  with  them,  much  as  if  he  had  never  been  one  of 
their  body.  He  gives  a  worse  account  of  them  than  is  thought 
credible,  particularly  of  their  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 

1  In  light  inaccessible :  see  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  4f>9, 

2  Aug.  contra  Faustum,lib.  20.  cap.  1. 


B.  I.  Append.  5.]  EAIILY  SECTS. 

I.  The  most  candid  judgment  about  which  account  is,  that,  as  a 
young  auditor,  he  knew  very  little  about  the  more  solemn 
parts  of  their  worship,  and  wrote  of  them,  as  of  other  sects, 
according  to  what  he  heard  reported.  Perhaps  the  enemies 

352  of  the  sect  might  represent  them  to  him  as  unfavourably  as 
possible,  in  order  to  secure  his   separation  from   them. 

xi.  Mani  has,  I  think,  been  spoken  of  as  making  high 
pretensions  to  supernatural  powers,  and  to  communication 
with  heaven.  The  best  judges  seem  to  think,  that  he  never 
made  any  pretensions  whatever  to  miracles3;  whether  he  pre 
tended  to  any  supernatural  intercourse  with  God,  is  thought 
very  doubtful.  In  his  time,  it  is  probable  that  few  taught 
any  thing  that  was  unknown  to  the  vulgar,  without  using  some 
language  of  their  own,  or  applying  some  language  of  Scripture, 
which  might  be  understood  as  pretending,  in  some  degree,  to 
supernatural  power.  Chemistry,  physics,  morals,  laws,  as  well 
as  religion,  have  often  had  a  mysterious  air,  when  they  were 
taught.  Mathematician*  and  magician  have  often  been  used 
as  synonymous ;  and  so  have  astronomy  and  astrology.  The 
enthusiasm  of  invention  gives  an  appearance  of  inspiration ;  and, 
when  the  people  take  up  the  notion,  and  attribute  discoveries 
to  a  supernatural  cause,  it  may  be  difficult,  and  may  be  thought 
hurtful,  or  imprudent,  to  disclaim  high  and  heavenly  com 
munications''.  But  I  say  this  in  general :  that  Mani  gave 
into  any  pretensions  of  this  sort,  has  not  been  proved. 

xii.  Some  of  the  abstemious  sects  of  Christians  seem  to 
have  run  into  an  imitation  of  the  Manichean  tenets  and  prac 
tices;  (or  they  and  the  Manicheans  have  had  one  common 
origin ;)  and  would  probably  have  done  it  more,  had  Chris 
tianity  been  the  ruling  religion  in  Persia.  It  is  surprising 
how  far  the  Cathari,  in  the  12th  century,  carried  such  imita- 

353  tion ;   and  at  such  a  distance  from  Persia  !   in  Bulgaria !   but, 
for  particulars,  I  will  refer  to  Mosheim^s  Ecclesiastical  His 
tory,  cent.  12.  part  n.  chap.  v.  sect.  4. 

5.  Such  is  our  account  of  the  Manicheans.  Being  pos 
sessed  of  the  particulars  of  it,  we  shall  more  readily  compre 
hend  what  may  be  said  upon  sects  or  heresies  antecedent  to 
it,  which  are  less  fully  described.  To  these  we  are  now  to 
come. 

When   we  consider  the  various  notions   and   practices  of 

3  See  Lardner.  4  Lard.  Her. 

5  Voltaire :  see  vol.  xiv,  4to,  p.  347,  about  Stoffler's  Deluge  in  1524. 


252  EARLY  SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  5. 

Christian  sects,  it  is  natural  to  wish  to  see  the  origin  of  such  I. 
as  strike  us  most ;  and  those  are  apt  to  appear  the  most 
striking  which  have  been  continued  down  to  modern  times, 
though  perhaps  with  some  variation  ;  but  when  (as  is  generally 
the  case)  we  cannot  get  distinct  ideas  of  their  origin,  we  are 
apt  to  fall  into  disputes  about  it.  As  an  instance,  may  be 
mentioned  monastic  life.  Some  think  the  origin  of  it  is  to  be 
found  in  the  third1,  some  in  the  fourth*  century,  some  in  the 
eleventh3-,  and  some  trace  it  up  to  the  Rechabites*  mentioned 
by  Jeremiah,  some  to  the  Assideans*  mentioned  in  the  books 
of  Maccabees,  and  others  to  the  Essenes6  mentioned  by  Philo 
and  Joseph  us.  With  regard  to  whole  systems  of  heretical 
notions,  there  seem  also  to  be  doubts.  Most  men  agree,  that 
very  early  Christians  mixed  such  philosophy  as  they  had  learnt 
with  the  tenets  of  Christianity ;  but  from  whence  had  their 
philosophy  been  derived  ?  It  is  generally  thought  that  there 
were  heresies  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles;  but  how  far  were 
they  new?  Though  something  might  perhaps  be  said  in 
answer  to  such  questions,  I  do  not  think  that  perfect  satisfac 
tion  is  to  be  attained  by  any  inquiry  into  antiquity  which  can  354, 
now  be  made.  I  should  prefer  to  strict  researches  into  anti 
quity,  a  simple  examination  of  those  general  principles  of 
human  nature7,  which  are  likely  to  produce  the  opinions  and 
practices  we  meet  with.  We  shall  have  much  less  anxiety 
about  the  time  when  any  opinion  sprang  up,  if  we  are  per 
suaded  that  it  might  spring  up  at  any  time8. 

I  say  general  principles,  but,  when  any  particular  ap 
pearances  are  to  be  solved,  human  nature  must  be  taken  as 
it  is  found  in  some  particular  circumstances,  which  will  have 
a  great  effect  upon  what  we  call  general  principles,  in  making 
them  take  different  courses  at  different  times.  Under  circum 
stances,  may  be  included  regions,  climates,  diet,  forms  of 
government,  modes  of  education,  customs,  traditions,  habitual 
notions,  state  of  arts  and  sciences,  and  forms  of  religion. 


1  Priestley's  Hist.  Corr.  part  xii.  In- 
trod.  and  sect.  1.          2  Gibbon. 
3  Forbes.  4  Jer.  chap,  xxxv. 

5  1   Mace.  ii.  42;   vii.  13.     2  Mace. 


xiv.  6. 

6  See  also  Michaelis,    Introd.    Lect. 
4to.  sect.  122. 

7  I  am  happy  to  find  a  thought  not 
very  different  from  this  in  Bp.  Hallifax 
on  Prophecy,  p.  181.    And  Dr.  Priestley 


says,  (Hist.  Corr.  part.  xii.  Introd.)  "  It 
is  the  same  principle  that  made  Essenes 
among  the  Jews,  monks  among  Chris 
tians,  dervises  among  Mahometans,  and 
fakirs  among  Hindoos." 

8  See  the  difficulty  of  this  subject,  on 
a  footing  of  fact  or  history,  Michaelis's 
Introd.  Lect.  sect,  about  Essenes.  Sect. 
123,  4to.  And  Maclaine's  Mosheim, 
1.  2.  5.  3.  about  Gnostics,  note  (r). 


B.  I.  Append.  6.] 


EARLY    SECTS. 


253 


I.  With  such  ideas  of  general  principles  and  particular  cir 
cumstances,  \ve  say,  that  in  religion  these  three  things,  con 
templative  life,  mortification,  and  belief  in  angels  and  spirits, 
as  constantly  affecting  human  life,  are  connected  together,  and 
promote  one  another;  though  there  may  be  particular  situ 
ations  which  may  strengthen  or  weaken  their  natural  con 
nexion.  This  would  not  be  affirmed,  if  the  generality  of  the 
early  oriental  Christian  sects  had  not  their  doctrines  compound* 

355  ed  of  these  three  ingredients".      In    Christian   sects   we   may 
perhaps  be  permitted  to  include  those  half-Christian  inhabit 
ants  of  the  deserts,  who  knew  only  John's  Baptism10. 

But,  for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  let  us  divide  our  assertion 
into  four  propositions. 

6.  i.  A  life  of  solitary  religious  contemplation  promotes 
mortification  and  self-denial ;  not  only  as  it  removes  occasions 
of  luxury  and  indulgence,  but  as  it  naturally  produces  what 
may  be  called  punishment  for  intemperance,  and  reward  for 
abstinence. 

In  contemplative  life,  several  evils,  or  punishments,  arise 
for  intemperance:  in  it  the  intemperate  are  unhappy,  in  dif 
ferent  ways.  It  is  impossible  for  the  intemperate  to  have  any 
tolerable  health  in  a  state  of  inaction  ;  and  every  unhealthy 
person  (I  believe  we  may  say)  is  unhappy.  And,  if  a  bodily 
disorder  should  sometimes  be  of  slow  growth,  yet  perhaps  the 
cure  may  be  equally  slow.  Intemperance  would,  in  solitude, 
nourish  discontent,  as  it  would  give  birth  to  propensities  to 
wards  unattainable  enjoyments  ;  this  discontent  would  act  as  a 
punishment.  And  the  desire  of  prohibited  pleasures,  when  it 
became  habitual,  would  make  the  mind  vicious — would  corrupt 
it,  and  so  make  it  feel  remorse.  A  state  of  rebellion  to  reason 
and  conscience  is  never  an  easy  state ;  but  particularly  uneasy 
when  reflection  cannot  be  overpowered  by  riot  and  dissipation. 
It  would  be  easily  conceived  that  luxury  must  be  an  abuse  of 
a  religious  contemplative  life ;  and  the  sense  of  that  must 

356  embitter    what    gratifications    could   be    attained   in    solitude. 
These  punishments,  ill  health,  discontent,  and  remorse,  would 
often  be  combined;  but,  if  they   were   not,    the  mind   would 
grow  uneasy  under  any  of  them,  and  of  course  restless ;   which 


9  See  Michaelis's  Introd.  Lect.  4to. 
beginning  of  sectr  101 ;  the  whole  of  sect. 
123,  and,  I  think,  124.  See  also  sect. 
1 25,  p.  324,  towards  bottom. 


10  Acts,  chap.  xix.  Michaelis's  Introd. 
4to,  sect.  125.  Voltaire,  4to.  vol.  xxvi. 
p.  111. 


254  EARLY  SECTS.       [B.  I.  Append.  7,  8. 

would  make  it  look  out  for  a  situation  more  comfortable  and   I. 
satisfactory. 

And  it  would  soon  perceive,  that,  in  a  solitary,  religious, 
contemplative  life,  there  are  not  only  punishments  for  intem 
perance,  but  also  rewards  for  abstemiousness.  So  that  every 
degree  of  abstemiousness  seems  to  answer  to  a  man  in  such 
a  life,  and  to  be  productive  of  good.  The  body,  though  not 
robust,  becomes  free  from  disorders,  supple,  light,  and  unen 
cumbered  ;  not  strong,  but  easily  set  in  motion,  and  disposed 
to  agility  :  and  robust  and  strong  enough  for  all  purposes  of  a 
contemplative  life.  The  mind  is  also  active,  and  light ;  the 
sentiments  become  refined,  polished,  benevolent ;  the  intellects 
penetrating,  so  that  the  investigation  of  truth  becomes  success 
ful  and  pleasing.  And  a  consciousness  of  not  being  refractory, 
but  resigned  to  the  situation  of  affairs,  gives  a  serenity,  and  a 
mild  complacency,  which  makes  every  thing  wear  a  pleasing 
aspect.  This  consciousness  grows  stronger,  as  the  contem 
plative  man  gets  a  stronger  sense  of  the  sinfulness  of  the  world, 
and  of  the  merit  of  retiring  from  it.  All  this  must  greatly 
promote  abstemiousness,  in  a  life  of  solitary  contemplation. 
What  I  describe  will,  I  think,  be  acknowledged  for  reality  by 
those  who  have  seen  Eastern  manners,  or  the  behaviour  and 
looks  of  some  monks  in  popish  countries  of  Europe. 

7-  ii-  Abstemiousness,  when  become  habitual,  promotes  in 
return  religious  solitary  contemplation.  This  may  already  in 
some  measure  appear ;  but  it  may  not  be  superfluous  to  ob 
serve,  that  he  who  has,  for  a  number  of  years,  abstained  from  357 
rich  food,  grows  so  feeble  and  delicate,  that  he  cannot  bear  the 
shocks  and  rudenesses  arising  in  intercourse  with  worldly  men. 
Coarse  mirth,  unfeeling  selfishness,  bold  ostentation,  act  upon 
him  with  such  a  repulsive  force,  that  it  requires  the  utmost 
efforts  of  his  courage  and  resolution  to  continue  any  time  in 
ordinary  society:  he  retires;  he  then  finds  himself  at  home — 
sheltered,  protected  :  his  fine  tastes,  his  elegant  conceptions, 
his  mild  and  sweet  affections,  out  of  the  reach  of  contempt  and 
ridicule,  spring  forth,  bloom,  and  flourish.  And,  when  he  has 
long  continued  in  this  way,  he  contracts  an  opinion  of  common 
life  as  very  faulty  and  imperfect ;  and  attaches  himself  unalter 
ably  to  a  contemplative  life,  as  to  that  in  which  alone  the 
lower  part  of  man  is  duly  degraded,  and  the  higher  faculties 
worthily  honoured  and  respected. 

8.   iii.   A  temper  formed  by  contemplation  and  abstemious- 


B.  I.  Append.  9,  10.]       EARLY   SECTS.  255 

I.  ness  will,  more  than  other  tempers,  encourage  notions  of  the 
agency  of  spirits  and  angels.  Such  a  course  of  life  will 
strongly  enflame  the  imagination ;  and  that  faculty  delights  in 
personifying,  and  in  assigning  personal  causes  of  all  interesting 
events.  In  common  life  we  personify  more  than  we  are  aware 
of: — 'you  are  Prudence  itself  P  we  say;  and  we  paint  Faith, 
Hope,  and  Charity.  We  find  also  Fear  creating  spectres  and 
apparitions.  This  may  put  us  in  the  way  of  conceiving  how  a 
mind,  purged  and  refined,  and  at  the  same  time  weakened,  by 
a  contemplative  and  abstemious  life,  may  fall  readily  into 
notions  of  angels,  spirits,  demons;  and  into  solving  appearances 
by  their  ministry  and  interference.  The  idea  of  their  presence 
and  influence  must  be  highly  delightful  and  flattering;  and  we 
naturally  dwell  on  what  delights  and  flatters  us ;  and  dwelling 
358  on  any  thing  disposes  us  to  believe  it.  Solitude  had  appeared 
the  least  evil,  and  therefore  the  contemplative  had  fled  to  it : 
but  he  still  is  glad  to  have  his  solitude  relieved  by  angelic 
society,  though  only  imaginary.  Sometimes  indeed  Reason 
will  interfere ;  but  Reason  must  allow  that  there  may  be 
superior  intelligences,  between  man  and  the  Great  Supreme. 
HE  is  a  spirit,  and  to  be  worshipped  in  spirit1.  From  allow 
ing  that  there  may  be  spirits,  it  is  an  easy  step  to  determining 
that  there  are ;  and  from  existence,  the  man  of  warm  fancy, 
when  not  checked  by  intercourse  with  active  life,  easily  passes 
on  to  the  manner  of  existence.  But  we  know  so  little  of  su 
perior  beings,  that  this  can  be  described  only  by  the  imagina 
tion ;  and  therefore  systems  of  angels  and  spirits,  formed  by" 
man,  must  admit  of  endless  variety2. 

9.  iv.   Lastly,  this  readiness  to  account  for  events  by  the 
intervention  of  angels  must,  in   its  turn,  promote  and  encou 
rage  abstemious  and  contemplative  life ;  because,  in  such  a  life, 
that  turn  and  disposition  will  find  the  greatest  encouragement 
and  the  freest  indulgence. 

10.  So  much  for  what  were  called  general  principles  of 
human  nature.      We  might  now  proceed  to  see  how  particular 
situations  would  modify  and  vary  the  effects  of  these  general 
principles ;  but  it  may  be  proper  previously  to  observe,  that 

1  John  iv.  24.  I   do  all  inferior  work,  is,  that  a  number  of 


2  It  may  be  remarked  here,  though  we 
are  in  a  different  train,  that  one  reason 
why  the  Easterns  always  conceive  the 
Deity  surrounded  with  angels,  &c.  who 


splendid  attendants  makes  part  of  their 
habitual  notion  of  greatness  —  as  does 
also  freedom  from  labour. 


256  EARLY  SECTS.          [13.  I.  Append.  11. 

the  description  here  given  of  solitary  life,  though  it  may  seem  I. 
favourable  in  some  respects,  is  not  intended  to  imply,  that  it  is 
right  upon  the  whole.  Supposing  it  were  agreed,  that  the 
higher  faculties  of  man  ought  to  be  supported  in  their  due  359 
rank  and  dignity,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  lower  ones  were 
to  be  annihilated ;  that  is  not  here  meant :  much  less  is  it 
intended  to  represent  a  solitary  life,  as  if  it  of  course  avoided 
moral  and  spiritual  dangers,  as  much  as  it  avoids  the  society  of 
men.  Every  kind  of  life  has  its  peculiar  dangers,  or  is  liable 
to  its  peculiar  vices.  The  "  dangers  in  the  practice  of  virtue, 
to  which  men  of  retired  and  studious  lives,  abstracted  in  a 
great  degree  from  the  pleasures,  the  business,  and  the  conver 
sation  of  the  world,  are  exposed,"  seem  well  described  by 
Dr.  Powell1 ;  but  a  description  of  such  dangers  is  not  a  denial 
of  the  advantages  of  such  a  life ;  nor  does  that  most  respectable 
author  intend  it  for  such,  as  he  expressly  declares2. 

11.  Now  we  come  to  consider  how  some  particular  situ 
ations  may  affect  these  general  principles  in  practice : — laying 
it  down,  in  order  to  prevent  mistakes,  that,  at  the  same  time 
that  any  certain  situation  may  promote  the  disposition,  which 
is  compounded  of  a  love  for  contemplative  life,  abstemiousness, 
and  a  belief  in  the  agency  of  spirits,  in  some  respects,  it  may 
discourage  the  same  disposition  in  other  respects  :  laying  it 
down  also,  that  when  a  cause  is  said  to  be  productive  of  any 
effect,  it  is  supposed  not  to  be  counteracted  by  any  other 
cause. 

i.  If  men  are  situated  where  science  has  been  little  cul 
tivated,  or  has  been  wrongly  cultivated,  they  will  be  the  more 
liable  to  catch  the  temper  now  described  ; — to  fall  into  con 
templative  life,  to  contract  notions  of  the  merit  of  abstemious 
ness,  and  of  the  agency  of  spirits  and  demons.  When  a 
general  ignorance  prevails,  virtue  is  supposed  to  be  something  360 
very  wonderful ;  it  is  estimated,  not  by  its  utility,  but  by 
its  distance  from  ordinary  pursuits.  And  every  enjoyment 
is  fancied,  indistinctly  indeed,  to  come  from  some  good  genius, 
every  calamity,  from  some  malignant  demon.  Nay,  though 
some  parts  of  science  have  been  attended  to,  yet,  if  researches 
have  been  made  upon  fantastic  grounds,  the  matter  is  not  much 
mended.  A  man  may  be  an  observer  of  the  heavenly  bodies;  but 
yet,  if  he  is  ignorant  of  rational  and  mathematical  elements  of 

1  Serm.  1st.     See  p.  3,  top.  I   of  the  vices  of  "an  idle  monk,"  is  p.  19, 

-  P. 20,  near  bottom.     His  description    I   bottom. 


B.  I.  Append.  11.]  EARLY  SECTS.  2/>7 

I.  astronomy,  his  imagination  prevails ; — lie  conceives  every  star 
either  to  be  the  star  of  some  prince3,  or  to  have  its  presiding 
angel — its  Lucifer'1,  or  its  Abaddon;  and  he  soon  neglects 
all  distinction  between  the  material  luminary  and  its  immaterial 
angelic  ruler ; — at  the  same  time  that  he  believes  the  material 
world  to  be  governed  by  certain  combinations  of  immaterial 
agents.  There  is  nothing  to  stop  him  from  taking  up  the 
star  of  his  god  Remphan*,  and  worshipping  the  host  of  hea 
ven.  Or  a  man  may  attend,  in  like  manner,  to  chemical 
operations,  and  they  may  only  excite  his  wonder,  and  serve 
to  confirm  his  belief  of  magic,  enchantment,  and  the  operations 
of  demons.  Or  attention,  in  the  state  of  ignorance  here  sup 
posed,  may  be  paid  to  numbers,  and  those  properties  be  only 
thought  of  which  please  and  entertain  the  fancy.  Of  these 
properties — analogies,  harmonies — there  is  great  abundance:  so 
that  excellence  and  efficacy  has  been  G ascribed  to  some  num 
bers,  in  preference  to  others ;  nay,  the  soul  itself  has  been 
imagined  to  be  number7. 

36l  ii.  The  form  of  civil  government  may  strengthen  the  dis 
position  we  are  speaking  of.  Despotism  debases  men,  lowers 
their  courage,  and  makes  them  more  liable  to  fear  :  gives  them 
so  little  encouragement  for  industry,  that  they  are  apt  to  fix 
their  enjoyment  in  different  sorts  of  indolence.  And  what 
ever  produces  indolence  favours  this  temper;  indolence  al 
ways  finds  a  lion  in  the  way  (Prov.  xxii.  13),  and  there 
fore  removes  out  of  the  way,  to  solitudes  of  one  sort  or  other. 
Despotic  government  moreover  gives  a  security  to  the  gene 
rality  of  private  individuals,  which,  when  it  cannot  lead  to 
action,  finds  comfort  in  contemplation  ;  and  makes  men  more 
fit  for  it  than  they  could  be,  if  often  exposed  to  danger,  and 
called  upon  to  make  resistance. 

iii.  Climate  may  have  an  effect.  Heat  relaxes  and  ener 
vates  :  a  large  and  extensive  continent  is  less  adapted  to  na'vi- 
gation,  and  to  sea-bathing,  than  an  island,  and  has  probably 
a  tendency  to  soften  men,  and  make  them  effeminate. 

iv.  The  produce  of  different  regions  may  have  different 
effects,  including  under  produce  the  breed  of  animals.  Abun 
dance  of  rice,  with  scarcity  of  barley  or  vines,  and  scarcity 


Numb.  xxiv.  17.    Matt.  ii.  2. 


4  Isai.  xiv.  12.    Rev.  ix.  11. 


Acts  vii.  42,  43. 

Voltaire,   vol.  xxvu.   4to,  p.  422, 


about  the  number  seven,  from  Clemens 
Alex.     Also   Michaelis's   Introd.    Lect. 
4to,  p.  317,  31!>.     Ficinus  on  Plato. 
7  Tusc.  Disp.  1.  U>. 


VOL.  I.  17 


258 


EARLY  SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  11, 


of  animals  for  food,  might  promote  monastic  life :    scarcity  of  I. 
vegetables,   with  plenty  of  animals,  or  of  nourishing  plants, 
might  discourage  it. 

v.  Popular  superstitions  of  certain  sorts  generate  a  timo 
rous,  scrupulous  temper.  Through  them,  men  get  to  be  afraid 
of  not  doing  enough,  they  will  therefore  do  something  more 
than  enough.  They  are  afraid  of  offending  superior  beings 
by  being  worldly,  and  therefore  they  avoid  the  world  ;  and 
gradually  more  and  more.  Popular  superstitions  may  also 
encourage  habitual  notions  of  the  agency  of  invisible  beings ; 
I  speak  here  of  unwritten  superstitions,  not  supposed  to  be 
revealed. 

vi.  Written  religion  may  have  the  same  kind  of  effect,  if  362 
either  superstitious  in  itself,  or  wrongly  interpreted.  It  is 
not  at  all  unlikely,  that  men  who  forge  revelations  should 
be  flighty  and  extravagant ;  should  enjoin  abstinence  from 
wine,  and  innocent  enjoyments;  and  should  recommend  very 
passionate  devotion,  communication  with  the  Divine  mind, 
annihilation  of  worldly  desires  and  conceptions.  Nor  is  it 
impossible  that  a  rational  Revelation  should  be  misapplied ; 
so  that  seasonable  precepts  about  temperance,  retirement, 
meditation  and  prayer,  and  about  trust  in  God  and  resigna 
tion  to  his  will,  should  be  made  to  have  the  same  effects1. 

More  particular  situations  might  be  thought  of,  but  we  363 
do  not  aim  at  a  full  discussion  of  this  matter.     We  may  see 


1  The  effects  of  retirement  on  the  pas 
sions  do  not  seem  to  have  been  sufficiently 
studied.  Does  it,  on  the  whole,  diminish 
their  strength  ? 

Dr.  Powell  (bottom  of  p.  4)  says, 
"•  Place  a  man  in  a  situation  where  they 
are  not  frequently  exercised,  and  he  is  in 
danger  of  sinking  into  an  unfeeling  le 
thargy.  Such  is  the  situation  we  are 
considering.  For  the  exercise  of  the 
passions  arises  chiefly  from  the  various 
turns  and  accidents  in  human  affairs." 
He  says,  the  passions  are  the  chief  sup 
ports  of  industry,,  and  that  studious  re 
tirement  impairs  their  vigour  (p.  f»)  ; 
retirement,  abstracted  from  pleasure,  bu 
siness,  conversation.  But  are  not  retired 
men  more  passionate,  in  some  things  at 
least,  than  men  in  active  life  ?  more  dis 
composed  by  shame,  more  affectionate, 
more  compassionate  ?  more  amorous,  in 


the  purer  sense  of  the  word  ?  would  they 
not  feel  more  indignation,  resentment, 
piety,  approbation,  remorse  ?  And  do 
not  wordly  men  get  hardened  ?  are  not 
some  men  of  the  world  very  unfeeling? 
how  is  this  ?  On  the  other  hand,  a  man's 
appetite  for  wine,  women,  luxuries,  gets 
blunted  by  distance  and  absence;  his  am 
bition  seems  as  if  it  would  be  quieter; 
his  avarice,  his  vanity,  but  not  perhaps 
his  pride.  Is  there  such  a  distinction  as 
this  ?  some  passions  are  actually  weaker 
in  solitude,  but  more  easily  roused  ?  that 
is,  the  man  is  less  irritated,  but  more  ir 
ritable?  or,  could  the  passions  be  divided 
into  classes  ?  one  class  to  consist  of  those 
which  flourished  most  in  retirement;  ano 
ther,  of  those  which  flourished  least  ?  I 
cannot  now  settle  this  matter.  Dr.  Powell 
makes  fear,  pccvisliiiess,  &c.  to  flourish 
in  retirement. 


B.  I.  Append.  12 — 14.]     EAIILY  SECTS.  259 

I.  that  there  are  circumstances  which  strengthen  the  natural  con 
nexion  between  contemplative  life,  abstemiousness,  and  the 
belief  of  the  influence  of  spirits ;  and  what  is  said  about 
strengthening  we  may  easily  change,  so  as  to  have  the  obser 
vation  relate  to  weakening  such  connexion. 

From  a  collective  view  of  all  the  particular  situations 
which  have  been  mentioned,  we  may  conclude,  that  such  people 
as  we  are  told  live  in  the  East  would  most  easily  fall  into 
the  kind  of  contemplative  life  of  which  we  have  been  speak 
ing.  Science  has  not  flourished  there  in  a  good  form  ;  civil 
governments  are  despotic ;  the  climate  is  hot,  with  large  con 
tinents  ;  the  ground  produces  great  quantities  of  rice ;  and 
there  are  many  popular  superstitions,  of  a  kind  suited  to  pro 
mote  a  life  of  contemplation,  &c.  All  this  would  make  our 
Scriptures  to  be  interpreted  in  a  manner  adapted  to  answer 
the  same  end. 

12.  There  has  always  been   a  great   resemblance  in   the 
opinions  of  the  East  and  those  of  Egypt^  and  a  great  com 
munication  between  the  two  countries.      Pythagoras'2  was  in 
strumental  in  this,  and  the   Platonists,  and   many  other   per 
sons  and  things.      Great  numbers  of  the  Jews  also  lived  in 
Egypt   from   the  time  of  the  first  Ptolemy,  about  312  years 
before   Christ.      But  we    must  not  be  very  particular,   when 

364  particulars  would  carry  us  into  long  or  doubtful  discus 
sions. ..Egypt  has  always  been  remarkable  for  various  super 
stitions  :  some  have  been  drawn  from  the  overflowing  of  the 
Nile ;  some,  I  think,  from  the  crocodile.  If  storks  were  as 
much  venerated  in  Egypt  as  they  are  in  Holland,  they  would 
be  worshipped. 

13.  In  the  mythology  of  Greece  and  Rome,  arts  and  sci 
ences,  republican  government,  maritime  war,  or  other  causes, 
seem  to  have  prevented  any  great  progress  of  the  temper  which 
we  are  considering,  except  as  to  superior  intelligences.      We 
may  call  all  their  gods  spirits  or  demons,  or  invisible  powers ; 
unless  we  should  make  an  exception  in  favour  of  an  Optimus 
Maximus.      Vestals  might  be  mentioned. 

14.  In  Europe   science  flourishes,   civil  governments  are 
limited,  climate  is  temperate,  animals  and  nourishing   plants 


2  The  ideas  of  Pythagoras  may  be  had 
from  the  Lives  of  him  written  by  Por 
phyry  and  Jamblichus:  see  a  specimen 


pliyry  and  Jamblichus.  See  also,  on  this 
subject,  Michaelis's  Introd.  Lect.  4to, 
sects.  100,  101,  123. 


or  two  in  Lardner's  Works:  Index,  Por- 

17 2 


260 


EARLY   SECTS.      [B.  I.  Append.  15,  16. 


are  plentiful,  and  superstition  is  discredited;  but,  in  some  parts,  I. 
interpretations  of  Scripture  prevail  which  were  made  in  times 
of  ignorance.  On  the  whole,  contemplative  life  and  abstemi 
ousness  are  encouraged  in  popish  countries ;  but  the  notion 
of  spirits  is  in  some  sort  checked ;  yet  prayer  is  made  to  saints 
and  angels1. 

In  England,  I  could  almost  say,  we  are  too  little  acquainted 
with  contemplative  religion.  The  monk  painted  by  Sterne 
may  give  us  a  more  favourable  idea  of  it  than  our  prejudices 
usually  suggest.  I  once  travelled  with  a  Recolet"  by  water, 
and  conversed  with  a  Minime*  at  his  own  convent ;  and  they 
both  had  that  kind  of  character  which  Sterne  gives  to  his 
monk — that  refinement  of  body  and  mind,  that  pure  glow  of 
meliorated  passion,  that  polished  piety  and  humanity.  Indeed 
they  both  seemed  confined  in  their  knowledge,  and  I  do  not  36, 
say  that,  independent  of  narrowness  of  information,  the  monk 
ish  character  implies  perfection ;  only  there  seems  to  be  some 
excellence  in  it,  even  supposing  that  excellence  to  be  over 
balanced  by  faults ;  and  what  there  is,  is  of  a  kind  with  which 
the  common  sort  of  Englishmen  are  not  enough  acquainted. 

15.  But  we  must  mention  the  Jewish  Essenes :  they  seem 
to  have  had  the  turn  we  speak  of  to  a  great  degree.  Philo  and 
Josephus4  speak  of  them.  Perhaps  some  idea  of  what  they 
professed,  with  regard  to  different  orders  of  angels,  may  be  got 
from  the  cabalistic  doctrine  of  the  ten  5 Sephiroths,  or  splendors, 
or  irradiations  ;  as  it  is  highly  probable  that  was  settled  before 
the  time  of  Christ,  the  Scriptures  having  the  same  terms  which 
are  found  in  the  tables  of  Sephiroths.  " Essenes"  in  Egyp 
tian,  means  physicians  (of  the  soul)  ;  in  Greek,  QepaTrevTctl, 
Therapeutse. 

l(j.  The  more  instances  we  see,  the  more  ready  shall  we 
be  to  admit,  that  the  mixture  we  are  considering  has  existed 
always,  though  with  some  varieties.  Though  we  want  to 
understand  it  for  the  heresies  which  sprang  up  in  the  Christian 


1  Livre  cle  1'Eglise — Reims,  p.  579,  in 
the  "Litanie  ties  Saints"  the  three  an 
gels  mentioned  in  Scripture  are  addressed. 

2  Aug.  14,  1770. 

3  July  10,  1771. 

4  Sec   Michaelis's  Introd.   Lect.   4to, 
sects.  122—124. 

•'  See  Encyclopedic,  Art.   Sephiroth, 
taken   from   Calmet.     "!2v  in   Buxt.   is 


evolavit,  maturavit:  as  a  subst.  a  bird, 
a  sparrow.  Chald.  morning;  a  diadem; 
and,  as  a  verb,  to  surround.  These  Chal- 
dee  senses  are  not  in  the  younger  lluxt. 
Lex.  Chald.  Parkhurst  makes  a  con 
nexion  amongst  the  senses;  which  agrees 
pretty  well  with  the  word  of  the  Encyclo 
pedic,  splendeurs.  From  Parkhurst's  ac 
count,  I  am  inclined  to  put  irradiations. 


R  I.  Append.  17-]  EAKLY  SECTS. 


261 


I.  Church,  yet  we  may  be  sure,  that  Christianity  did  not  occa 
sion  such  notions  as  Christian  hereticks  professed.  Christi 
anity  could  not  be  said  to  be  published  till  St.  Paul  had 
written  his  Epistles ;  and  in  them  he  seems  to  allude  to  our 
opinions  pretty  frequently. 

366  17-    Now  therefore  we  come  to  Christian  hereticks.      And 
the  first  thing  to  be  done  is,  to  consider  a  few  separate  words, 
which   are  much  made  use   of  in    speaking   about   spirits,   or 
angels,  or  demons,  by  sacred  or  other  Christian  writers.     In  the 
order  of  time,  passages  of  Scripture  should  come  before  the  writ 
ings  of  Christians ;    but  it  seems  as  if  it   would  be   best    to 
go   to  the   end  of  our  explanations  of  both  sorts  of  heresies, 
before  we   took   scriptural   instances   of   either;    especially   as 
most  heretical  opinions  professed  by  early  Christians  had  ex 
isted,  in  some  way  or  other,  before  the  Scriptures  were  pub 
lished. 

One  word  very  frequently  made  use  of  to  express  one  of 
these  invisible  beings,  is  aiu>v,  ceon.  How  this  has  happened 
may  be  doubtful :  I  suppose  Scripture  has,  some  way  or  other, 
been  the  source  from  which  it  has  been  drawn.  Things  men 
tioned  there  have  been  personified :  God  is  called  BacnXei/s 
TWI>  ai(oi'cov9  (l  Tim.  i.  17),  King  of  the  JSnons ;  in  our  trans 
lation,  "  the  King  eternal."  a'uavtos  is  used  for  eternal,  and 
applied  to  God  :  the  etymology  of  aiwv  is,  quasi  ael  a>v.  By 
some  transition  or  other,  aiuves  has  been  used  for  angels  or 
spirits,  as  inferior  gods :  the  Aoyos  himself  is  called  by  that 
name,  and  even  the  one  Supreme  God6 :  and  it  happens,  that 
some  texts  will  bear  that  translation.  See  Ephes.  iii.  9,  where 
the  mystery  of  the  Gospel  is  said  to  have  been  hid  from 
aitaixov,  ages  or  ceons,  (see  1  Pet.  i.  12,)  in  our  translation, 
"from  the  beginning  of  the  world,"  Also  1  Tim.  i.  17,  men 
tioned  above. 

Another  word  much  used  is  ir\qpt*ft<*  5  but,  to  give  a 
perfectly  satisfactory  account  of  it,  may  not  be  easy.  It  seems 
to  mean  a  system,  complete  in  itself;  and  H.  Stephens,  I 

367  see,  has  a  quotation   from   Philo,  TrXjJjoaym  /cat   every^a,   &c. 
Michaelis7  uses  it  for  an  heaven,  that  is,  a  place;   but  I  do 
not  find  that  sense  in  H.  Stephens,  Suicer,  or  Du  Cange ;  yet 
Parkhurst  comes  very  near  it,  if  not  quite  to  it.     The  Easterns 


G  Suicer's  Thesaurus  is  a  proper  book 
to  consult  for  such  words  as  these,  aitov, 
see  Grabe's  Irenaus,  p.  9,  note. 


7  Sect.  102,  Intod.  Lect.  also  sect.  101, 
p.  24G,  bottom  ;  and  p.  247,  4to. 


262  EARLY  SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  17. 

conceived  a  TrXvjOo^a,  in  the  sense  of  a  system,  or  complete  I. 
company ,  made  up  of  God  and  his  attendant  aiwves1  :  also  in 
the  sense  of  a  space  occupied  by  them :  and  it  would  be  ge 
nerally  difficult  to  say  in  which  of  these  senses  the  word  was 
used  :  for,  if  a  man,  or  superior  being,  was  admitted  into 
the  7r\qpw(jia9  in  the  first  sense,  he  would  be  also  in  the  second. 
Being  admitted  into  a  company  is  being  admitted  into  the 
place  occupied  by  that  company ;  as  admission  into  a  family 
is  admission  into  the  house  where  that  family  resides. 

riAj/'/ow/za  often  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament: — the  earth 
is  the  Lord's,  and  the  fulness  (TrXj/jOcojua)  thereof.  Some 
Oriental  heretics  did  not  favour  the  Old  Testament,  but  that 
did  not  hinder  their  believing  that  they  should  be  admitted 
into  that  TrX^'joaj/za,  which  they  conceived. 

The  word  TrXypwjuLa  seems  sometimes  to  be  used  in  an 
indefinite  sense,  as  a  word  of  eloquence  or  passion,  or  express 
ing  something  above  human  emptiness,  vacuity,  imperfection  : 
see  John  i.  16'.  Ephes.  i.  23.  and  iii.  19.  Col.  i.  19.  and  ii.  9. 
Now,  when  this  is  the  case,  to  put  a  definite  meaning  on 
that  word,  is  to  misinterpret  it.  It  is  conceivable  that  Reve 
lation  may  use  words  in  an  indefinite  sense.  That  ought  not 
to  set  men  upon  indulging  their  imaginations. 

It  seems  right  also  to  mention  some  words  relating  to  368 
contemplative  life.  MovcKrrqpiov,  a  monastery,  was  a  word  in 
use  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  At  first,  it  was2  probably  used 
for  the  habitation  of  one  single  person,  in  solitude  or  reli 
gious  retirement ;  then,  perhaps,  for  a  row  or  set  of  cells, 
each  of  which  was  inhabited  by  a  single  person  ;  afterwards 
it  seems  to  have  been  used  as  synonymous  to  Koivofitov,  where 
several  contemplatives  lived  together,  having  several  things 
in  common,  as  refectory,  &c.  These  persons  have  been  call 
ed3  ava^'jopr]Tal9  anchorets,  as  seceding;  eptjfjii'htti  hermits, 
as  being  often  in  deserts  ;  jj(jv^a(jTal\  as  being  quiet.  Those 
who  did  extraordinary  things  in  the  way  of  mortification  were 
called  ascetics  :  'Acr/c^crts  means  exercise ;  exercise  is  natural 
to  all  who  would  improve  in  virtue5.  The  proper  sense  of 
mortification  is  abstaining  from  what  is  lawful  by  way  of 

1  How  the  Church  came  to  be  called      Stephens. 

Fleroma,  see  Hammond  on  Rom.  xi.  12.          3  In  Constantine,  but  no  instance. 
See  also  Ephes.  i.  23.     It  might  be  con-   !       4  Not  in  Constantine,  nor  H.  Stephens, 

sidered  whether  TrXjj/x^ua  included  any  but  in  Suicer,  who  conceives  these  words 

idea  of  the  Divine  immensity.  \  to  imply  different  degrees  of  retirement. 

2  Constantine   cites    Phih ;    so  docs    '       5  Acts  xxiv.  16. 


B.  I.  Append.  18.]  EARLY  SECTS.  263 


I     exercise,  in  order  to  acquire  the  habit  of  abstinence. 

therefore,  and  mortification^  stand  for  the  same  idea  in  reli 
gious  discipline. 

These  are  the  chief  terms  which  want  explanation,  for 
the  purpose  of  considering  the  notions  of  the  early  Christian 
sects.  After  the  attention  which  we  have  paid  to  the  Ma- 
nicheans,  it  seems  as  if  it  would  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose 
to  take  notice  of  but  few  others.  We  may  mention  some- 

369  thing  of  the  Valentinians,  and  the  Marcionitesr\  and  take  some 
notice  of  the  Gnostics.      To  speak  of  more,  would  exceed  the 
bounds  of  our  undertaking. 

18.  Valentinus  is  said,  by  Cave,  to  have  flourished  about 
the  year  120,  to  have  been  born  in  Egypt,  and  to  have 
been  a  Platonic  philosopher.  Tertullian  speaks  of  him  as  able, 
ingenio  et  eloquio  ;  but  says,  that  he  quitted  the  regular 
church  through  resentment,  some  one  having  been  appointed 
to  a  bishoprick  in  preference  to  him,  ex  martyrii  praerogativa  ; 
ut  solent  animi  pro  prioratu  exciti  praesumtione  ultionis 
ascendi.  Enough  of  the  Valentinians  may  be  seen  in  the 
first  book,  one  might  say  in  the  first  section,  of  Grabe's  edi 
tion  of  Irenaeus7.  Thirty  a?ons  are  reckoned  up,  which  con 
stitute  a  pleroma  ;  or  rather  fifteen  couples,  male  and  female  ; 
some  have  said  these  were  thirty  gods  ;  others,  that  altogether 
they  formed  the  true  God.  But  the  description  of  the  first 
aeon,  called  Buthos,  or  Propator,  or  Proarche,  &c.  seems  of 
itself  to  approach  to  a  description  of  a  Supreme  God.  Each 
of  these  aeons  seems  to  be  something  personified,  as  Life, 
Truth,  Silence,  Mind,  Happiness,  &c.,  or  one  of  the  titles 
given  to  the  Son  of  God  •  and  the  genealogies  seem  not 
unlike  the  Theogonia  of  Hesiod  ;  who  makes  Heaven,  Earth, 
Ocean,  Morning,  Day,  Night;  Love,  Desire,  Gracefulness,  &c. 
Sec.  to  be,  in  one  rank  or  other,  gods  ;  besides  Rivers,  Winds, 
&c.  In  some  sense,  it  has  been  said8  that  Hesiod  makes  thirty 
gods;  but  certainly  Valentinus  made  his  upon  scriptural  grounds, 
such  as  they  were  ;  and.  they  made  a  system.  He  said,  they 

370  corresponded  to  the  thirty  years9  which  our   Saviour  passed 
in  private  life  —  to  the  sum  of  the  number  of  hours  mentioned 


5  Valentinus  and  Marcion  seem  to 
have  been  cotemporaries,  not  far  from 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Va 
lentinus  being  in  Egypt,  and  Marcion 
in  Pontits,  the  order  in  which  they  should 
stand  may  not  have  been  well  ascertain 


ed,  and  may  not  be  important. 


7  There  are  only  fragments  of  Irenseus's 
Works,  besides  the  work  against  heresies. 

8  Epiphan.  Plaer.  31.  sect.  2.  &c.    See 
Grabe's  Irenasus,  p.  !).  note.  top. 


Ibid,  p.  !». 


EARLY   SECTS.  [13.  I.  Append.  19. 

in  the  parable  of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard  : — the  sum  of  I. 
1,  3,  (>,  9,  11,  is  thirty.  This  seems  to  be  the  most  distinguishing 
part  of  the  doctrine  of  Valentinus ;  except  we  should  mention 
his  idea,  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  real,  though  not  really 
human ;  that  it  was  brought  from  the  stars,  and  returned  to 
them  again  upon  his  ascension.  This  is  the  more  to  be  noticed, 
as  it  is  one  mode  of  rejecting  the  scriptural  accounts  of  our 
Saviour's  nativity.  He  held  many  things  in  common  with 
other  Oriental  heretics,  concerning  the  inferior  or  malevolent 
nature1  of  the  Maker  of  this  world,  and  the  necessity  of  reject 
ing  some  Scriptures  commonly  held  Divine  ;  but  these  we  shall 
meet  with,  in  better  order,  in  the  doctrines  of  Marcion.  Both 
Valentinus  and  Marcion  were  very  eminent :  had  many  disciples 
of  eminence,  in  different  parts  of  the  world  ;  who,  as  well  as 
themselves,  were  probably  acquainted  with  literature  and  phi 
losophy. 

19.  Marcion  was  the  son  of  a  bishop  in  Pontus2;  he  is 
thought  to  have  flourished  about  the  year  130.  In  his  youth, 
he  is  said  to  have  been  excommunicated  by  his  father,  but 
whether  for  immorality,  or  his  doctrine,  has  been  disputed ; 
probably  the  latter.  He  might  be  unsettled  in  his  way  of  life. 

His  doctrine  sets  out  on  the  eastern  notion  of  two  prin 
ciples,  and  on  each  of  these  principles  is  founded  a  set  of  no 
tions  ;  and  the  different  notions  in  each  set  correspond  to  each 
other.  His  good  principle  was  the  Father  of  Christ ;  he  was 
benign,  forgiving,  merciful ; — he  was  the  giver  of  the  Gospel.  371 
The  other  principle,  which  could  not  be  so  properly  called 
an  evil  principle,  as  one  less  good,  was  the  &ijfj.iovpyos,  De 
miurge,  Creator  of  this  world.  He  was  not  merciful,  but 
strict  and  severe,  in  justice  at  least,  if  not  beyond  justice. 
He  was  the  giver  of  the  Law — of  that  severe  law,  which 
allowed  of  retaliation,  &c.  So  that  the  Father  of  Christ 
was  opposed  to  the  Creator  of  the  world  ;  the  merciful,  to 
the  severe ;  the  giver  of  the  Gospel,  to  the  giver  of  the 
Law. 

As  to  the  person  of  Christ,  Marcion  was  accounted  one 
of  the  Phantasiasts,  or  Doceta? ;  that  is,  one  of  those  who 
thought  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  only  apparently  human  ; 


1  Cave  mentions  a  fragment  of  Valen 
tinus  in  a  Dialogue  about  him,  ascribed 
to  Origen,  which  is  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  Evil,  and  docs  account  for  it  by 


two  principles  ;  after  the  manner  supposed 
by  us,  when  we  spoke  of  Mani. 

2  He  is  sometimes  called,  not  Marcion, 
but  Ponticus. 


B.  I.  Append.  20.]  EARLY  SECTS. 


265 


I.  yet  he  seems  not  to  have  carried  this  notion  so  far  as  some; 
at  least,  he  believed  in  the  death  of  Christ,  and  in  his  resur 
rection.  Possibly  he  might  conceive  the  flesh  of  Christ  to  be 
somewhat  different  from  common  human  flesh,  without  denying 
it  to  be  solid,  or  material. 

The  Oriental  heretics  seem  to  have  made  a  great  differ 
ence  between  Jesus*  and  Christ — to  have  thought  .Jesus  of  a 
lower  nature,  and  Christ  of  an  higher.  Marcion  allowed  that 
Jesus  was  Christ,  but  he  expected  another  Christ  to  come, 
to  restore  the  Jewish  state1. 

No  heretic  ever  took  greater  liberties  with  the  Scriptures 
than  Marcion ;  but  the  liberties  he  took  are  accounted  for 
by  his  tenets.  He  rejected  the  Law  of  Moses ;  and  he  made 
antitheses^  in  order  to  expose  its  inferiority  to  the  Gospel, 
and  to  shew  that  they  did  not  come  from  the  same  God.  He 
!72  rejected  many  and  very  considerable  parts  of  our  New  Testa 
ment  ;  the  temptation  of  Christ  in  particular.  He  also  new- 
modelled  the  scriptural  account  of  the  Incarnation. 

The  morals  of  Marcion  were  strict  and  pure;  he  was  a 
favourer  of  virginity.  I  have  already  said,  that  his  followers 
were  numerous  and  of  importance.  On  the  whole,  he  seems 
a  signal  example  of  the  rashness  of  following  human  notions 
of  what  is  best,  in  accepting  and  applying  5 divine  dispensa 
tions.  You  will  say,  Marrion's  fancies  ought  not  to  be  repre 
sented  as  human  reason  :  but  they  were  so  to  him  ;  and  the 
notions  of  the  wisest  of  men,  being  infinitely  short  of  Divine 
intelligence,  may  be  conceived  as  on  a  footing  with  his,  in 
such  a  comparison.  And  he  who  sets  the  most  improved 
human  reason  in  competition  with  Divine  Wisdom,  will  err  in 
the  same  form  with  Marcion,  though  not  perhaps  in  the  same 
particulars. 

20.  The  Gnostics  might  have  been  noticed  first ;  but  I 
was  naturally  led,  by  my  train  of  thought,  to  mention  them 
here,  in  like  manner  as  to  produce  scriptural  examples,  after 
the  whole  explication  of  Christian  heresies.  Whatever  method 
brings  the  ideas  to  our  minds  with  the  least  confusion  and 
embarrassment,  seems  the  best  method.  The  general  name 
will  always  seem  most  intelligible,  after  the  particular  species 
have  been  enumerated. 


3  See  amongst  many  instances  Michae- 
lis's  Introd.  Lect.  quarto,  p.  247. 

4  Before,  Chap.  xvii.  sect.  16  of  this. 


5  Kurd's  1st  Discourse  on  Prophecy. 
Powell's  3d  Charge. 


266 


EARLY   SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  21. 


Bishop  Warburton  observes1,  that  cro(f)ia  means  "  all  the  I. 
great  principles  of  natural  religion;"  and  yvwvis,  "  all  the  great 
principles  of  the  revealed."  This  being  settled,  we  can  con 
ceive  that  any  persons,  who  thought  their  own  knowledge 
of  the  meaning  of  Scripture  particularly  profound,  would 
imagine  themselves  excellent  in  this  yvwrns  ;  and,  if  formed 
into  a  body,  which  wanted  a  name,  would  call  themselves  373 
Gnostics.  In  fact,  the  persons  who  did  pride  themselves 
on  their  superior  knowledge  of  Scripture  ran  into  mystical2, 
figurative,  fantastic  interpretations  of  Scripture;  and  adopted 
many  maxims  and  notions  of  Oriental  philosophy,  which  they 
followed  in  settling  their  canon  of  Scripture,  as  well  as  in 
giving  to  expressions  their  own  sense.  This  was  not  a  real 
•yi/ftXTtS)  but  a  false  and  spurious  one — yvcocris  \l/evc(jovv/u.os*. 
Gnostics  came,  after  some  time,  to  be  the  general  term  for 
the  Oriental  sects  taken  collectively  ;  and  Docetce,  or  Phan- 
tasiastce,  was  used  in  the  same  sense ;  because  all  those  who 
affected  mysterious  interpretations  of  Holy  Writ,  and  adopted 
Oriental  philosophy,  held  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  not 
what  it  appeared  to  be4.  Hammond  seems  to  use  the  word 
in  this  general  sense ;  and  he  uses  it  very  frequently.  But 
we  may  now  quit  the  Oriental  sects,  and  proceed  to  the 
Judaical.  These  will  take  very  little  time. 

21.  The  Judaical  sects  seem  to  have  been  but  two, 
which  may  be  called  Ebionites  and  Naxarenes.  I  suppose 
both  these  sects,  though  undoubtedly  professing  the  religion 
of  Christ,  were  much  attached  to  the  Jewish  religion,  having 
been  bred  up  in  it,  and  believing  it  to  be  of  Divine  original; 
but  they  are  distinguished  by  their  different  opinions  concern 
ing  the  person  of  Christ.  The  Ebionites  supposed  him  a 
mere  man,  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary;  but  those  who  were 
called  by  the  name  given  sometimes  to  Christians  in  general, 
the  Naxarenes,  though  they  believed  him  to  be  real,  perfect 
man,  supposed  him  to  be  supernaturally  born,  of  the  virgin,  374, 
by  the  sole  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  yet  the  Nazarenes 
do  not  seem  to  have  allowed  the  pre-existence  of  Christ5.  As 


1  A   Discourse  concerning   the   Holy 
Spirit,  p.  25. 

2  See  Hammond  on  Hebr.  v.  14. 

3  1  Tim.  vi.  20. 

4  Tert.  uses  Marcionas  a  general  term 
for  Oriental  heretics  ;  (see  Lard.  Works, 
vol.  ix.  p,  234,  note.)     They  are  also 


often  said  to  originate  all  from  Simon 
Magus. 

6  Except  as  a  man:  according  to  John 
ix.  1,  2,  they  allowed,  that  Christ  might 
have  a  remembrance  that  he,  as  man,  had 
conversed  with  God  before  his  birth.  See 
Macknight  on  John  ix.  1,  2. 


B.  I.  Append.  22.]  EARLY  SECTS. 


207 


T,  the  Oriental  sects  had  general  names,  so  the  Judaical  were 
collectively  called  Ebionites*.  I  think  we  cannot  much  won 
der  that  the  Jews  should  be  inclined  to  reckon  their  Messiah 
a  mere  man.  All  the  persons  whom  they  had  most  reverenced 
had  pretended  to  nothing  higher  than  human  nature :  Christ 
was  to  be  the  son  of  David ;  Jesus  was  born  of  a  certain  tribe, 
nay,  of  an  inferior  person  in  that  tribe;  Christ  was  to  be  power 
ful,  but  only  as  a  prince.  But,  though  the  Jews  in  general 
might  have  been  habituated  to  expect  a  mere  man  for  their 
Messiah,  yet  the  Nazarenes  might  have  attended  to  the  cir 
cumstances  in  which  Jesus  was  born7,  to  the  prophecies,  and 
the  star,  so  much  as  to  adopt  the  opinion  that  his  birth  was 
miraculous.  The  Judaical  sects  are  said  to  be  older  than  the 
Oriental,  though  the  8  Oriental  subsisted  in  the  times  of  the 
Apostles. 

22.  Some  heresies  have  an  appearance  of  being  mixed — 
their  doctrines  compounded  of  Oriental  and  Judaical  tenets ; 
if  we  include  in  the  Judaical  such  as  arose  amongst  the 
Essenes :  and  the  Essenes  were  certainly  a  Jewish  sect, 
though  they  adopted  Egyptian  or  Oriental  philosophy.  The 
heresy  of  Cerinthus,  a  Jew  of  Asia,  may  be  of  this  mixed 
375  sort.  What  he  held  concerning  spirits,  &c.  may  be  solved, 
possibly,  either  from  Oriental  philosophy,  or  from  Jewish 
cabalistical  Sephiroths'\  And  this  remark  may,  perhaps,  be 
applicable  to  Carpocrates.  Some  Jewish  Christians  had  some 
notion  of  the  world's  being  made  by  some  inferior  Demiurge  : 
but,  if  Essenes  drew  their  notions  from  Egyptian  or  Oriental 
philosophy,  as  they  were  Jews,  it  seems  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  Oriental  and  Jewish  tenets  should  get  mixed.  Gene 
rally,  when  Oriental  heretics  are  opposed  to  Judaical,  it  is 
not,  I  think,  meant  to  reckon  the  Essenes  amongst  the  Jews ; 
though  they  might  be  as  much  for  retaining  the  Law  of 
Moses  as  the  Ebionites.  I  should  conceive,  that,  when  any 
difficulties  arise  from  a  seeming  mixture  of  Oriental  and  Ju 
daical  tenets,  the  best  solution  would  be,  to  ascribe  that 
mixture  to  the  Jewish  sect  of  Essenes  having  adopted  some 


6  Eusebius  makes  two  sorts  of  Ebion 
ites.  (Hist.  3.  27.) 

7  They  might  also  attend  more  to  current 
notions  of  Aoyos,  Son  of  God,  as  explain 
ed  by  Allix — Unitarians — but  of  this  more 
in  the  fourth  book.    They  might  also  see 
some  very  lofty  expressions  in  some  of  the 


Prophecies:  see  Apthorpe's  Warb.  Lect. 

8  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  541,  542, 
incl.  notes. 

9  See  Lardner's  account  of  Cerinthus, 

particularly  sect.  4 Works,  vol.  ix.  p. 

325.   See  also  Mich.  In  trod.  Lect.  quarto, 
sect.  101.  p.  24J. 


260  EARLY   SKCTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  23. 

Oriental  tenets,  at  the  same  time  that  they  continued  attached    I. 
to  Judaism. 

23.  Having  now  gone  through  the  particular  tenets  of 
the  Oriental  and  Judaical  heresies,  we  may  take  some  notice 
of  the  extent  of  those  tenets.  We  may  observe,  that  some 
opinions  seem  to  have  been  held  generally ;  others  only  by 
particular  sects,  or  persons.  All  seem,  in  early  times  of  Chris 
tianity,  notwithstanding  the  prevalence  of  Polytheism  in  the 
world,  to  have  acknowledged  one  supreme  benevolent  Deity. 
Nay,  those  who  maintained  two  principles  only  maintained 
an  evil  one,  in  order  that  they  might  clear  the  good  God  from 
all  blame.  Most  Eastern  and  some  Jewish  heretics  seem  to 
have  had  unfavourable  ideas  of  matter,  which  would  natu 
rally  lead  them  to  doubt  the  reality  of  the  body  of  Christ,  3?6 
as  human  flesh ;  and  to  question  first  his  resurrection,  and 
then  the  general  resurrection ;  and  lastly,  to  suppose  the  ma 
terial  world  made  by  subordinate  beings,  with  only  the  tacit 
consent  or  connivance  of  the  Supreme.  Then,  these  subordi 
nate  beings  must  be  spirits,  which  would  require  classing, 
and  so  must  have  names.  The  belief,  that  Christ  would 
be  received  into  those  heavenly  orbs,  from  which  he  was 
thought  to  have  been  taken,  was  more  general  than  we  should 
easily  imagine. 

All  sects  seem  to  have  been  charged  with  immoralities, 
and  none  collectively  to  have  been  guilty. 

Making  free  with  Scriptures  was  very  general,  but  much 
more  so  amongst  the  Oriental  sects  than  amongst  the  Judaical. 
It  appears  more  strange  to  us,  that  men  should  reject  Scrip 
tures,  than  it  would  do  if  separate  Gospels  were  handed  about 
in  manuscript,  and  those  such  that  a  much  greater  number 
ought  to  be  rejected  than  received1. 

Though  some  opinions  were  held  generally,  yet  we  find 
several  varieties  amongst  those  of  whom  we  are  speaking. 
By  some  Christ  was  called  a  mere  man,  by  others  a  real 
person ;  some  believed  in  a  number  of  ceons,  others  matter 
eternal,  and  no  aeon ;  some  held  two  co-eternal  principles ; 
others  one  eternal  principle,  who  created  a  second  principle : 
some  made  Melchisedec  to  be  an  rcon  ;  and  who  can  expect 
uniformity,  or  an  end  of  varieties,  where  the  imagination  does 
all,  and  has  free  scope?  The  ideas  of  the  Valentinians  and 
Manicheans  occur  most  frequently,  and  therefore  have  been 

1  Sec  before,  Chnp.  xii.  sect.  4. 


B.  I.  Append.  2k]  EAHLY   SECTS,  269 

I.  here  most  particularly  described.  As  there  were  varieties  in 
doctrinal  points,  so  there  might  be  some  in  practical  or  moral ; 
but  imputations  are  seldom  to  be  credited.  Basilides,  it  is 
.377  said,  made  all  actions  indifferent:  perhaps,  at  bottom,  this 
might  be  nothing  more  than  that  he  thought  a  man  might 
be  a  good  Christian  married  as  well  as  unmarried.  He  was 
charged  with  slighting  the  fear  of  God,  and  the  fear  of  God 
sometimes  means  religion  in  general.  Nothing  more,  perhaps, 
was  strictly  true,  than  his  exhorting  his  followers  to  aim  at 
some  love  of  God,  perhaps,  ultimately,  at  that  perfect  love 
which  "casteth  out  fear.  Nevertheless,  it  seems  possible,  that 
some  Gentile  converts  might  attempt  to  retain  some  impure 
rites  of  Paganism,  when  they  turned  to  Christianity;  but 
I  have  not  seen  it  proved  that  any  did.  The  ?> Nicolaitans  are 
spoken  of  as  having  committed  some  wicked  "deeds'" — as 
having,  in  some  sense,  committed  fornication,  (if  ver.  20,  of 
Ilev.  Chap.  ii.  relates  to  them),  but  fornication  often  means 
only  idolatry*. 

Varieties  in  rejecting  Scripture  have  already  appeared. 
But  the  principal  observation,  relative  to  the  differences  of 
opinion  amongst  the  early  sects,  is  this :  those  who  asserted 
two  principles  denied  the  humanity  of  Christ;  those  who  held 
one  single  principle  allowed  his  humanity,  but  denied  his 
divinity.  The  reason  of  this  might  not  be  intuitively  clear 
to  those  who  had  not  entered  into  our  present  subject ;  but,  if 
we  reflect  on  what  has  been  said,  we  may  see  how  hatred 
of  matter  leads  to  denying  that  Christ  had  a  material  body  ; 
and  how  the  Jews,  who  were  distinguished  by  their  belief  in 
the  unity  of  God,  might  be  led  to  think  their  Messiah  nothing 
greater  than  a  powerful  man. 

24.    We  now  come  to  look  at  a  few  texts  of  Scripture, 
with  the  ideas  resulting  from  what  has  been  said.     But  it  may 
378  be   as    well    to   resume   our  division    of   early    heretics,    into 
Oriental,   Judaical,  and  mixed. 

First,  we  will  mention  a  few  passages,  which  seem  to  refer 
to  Oriental  heresies :  these  passages  may  be  either  such  as  are 
of  considerable  length,  or  single  texts.  St.  John's  Gospel 
seems  to  have  been  written  under  a  sense  of  Oriental  errors  ;  so 
does  his  first  Epistle,  and  his  Book  of  Revelation.  St.  Paul 
seems  to  allude  to  them,  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians, 

2  1  John  iv.  IH.  3  Rev.  ii.  0,  15,  20. 

4  Lard.  Her.  Book  I.  sect.  5. 


2/0  EARLY  SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  25. 

Philippians1,  Colossians,  and  to  Timothy,  and  Titus;  and  I. 
these  compositions  will  seem  the  less  obscure,  if  we  are  ac 
customed  to  Oriental  notions.  Particular  single  texts,  to  be 
read  in  the  original,  as  well  as  the  translation,  may  be  the 
following: — Ephes.  i.  21;  iii.  10;  vi.  12.  Col.  i.  16;  ii.  18. 
1  Tim.  i.  4;  iv.  1,  7;  vi.  20.  2  Tim.  ii.  16 — 18.  Tit.  iii.  9. 
1  John  iv.  2,  3. 

In  these,  we  may  observe  several  of  the  orders  of  angels 
mentioned  in  the  Jewish  Sephiroths ;  references  to  the  gene 
alogies  of  aeons,  spoken  of  here  as  taught  by  Valentinus,  and 
to  the  doctrine  of  demons ;  and  other  profane  and  silly  fables. 
In  1  Tim.  vi.  20,  besides  spurious  yvwcris,  we  find  mention 
of  Antitheses,  which  may  have  been  such  as  Marcion  is  said 
to  have  composed2.  The  Docetce  seem  to  be  clearly  pointed 
out,  1  John  iv.  2,  3. 

It  might  answer  the  same  purpose  with  looking  at  these  379 
texts,  to  read  some  part  of  Parkhursfs  exposition  of  jrXff/Mtyuui; 
particularly  the  9th  and  10th  senses  of  that  word;  also  Sir 
I.  Newton  on  Prophecies3,  Part  I.  Chap,  xiii ;  and  Lord 
King's  Critical  History  of  the  Creed,  quoted  by  Benson,  on 
1  Tim.  i.  4. 

25.  But,  having  only  mentioned  in  a  cursory  manner,  that 
St.  John's  Gospel  seems  to  have  been  written  with  a  feeling  of 
heretical  errors,  it  seems  proper,  and  likely  to  make  our  ideas 
of  our  present  subject  more  definite,  to  resume  that  obser 
vation  ;  especially  as  some  very  learned  and  respectable  writers4 
have  been  of  a  different  opinion.  The  first  question  which 
occurs  is  concerning  the  time  when  St.  John  wrote  his  gospel. 
John  the  Evangelist  is  supposed  to  have  died  about  the  end 
of  the  first  century,  at  a  great  age,  some  say  94.  Many  have 
been  of  opinion  that  he  wrote  and  published  his  gospel  very 
late  in  life ;  but  Lardner  seems  to  give  good  reasons  for 
judging  that  it  was  written  and  published  before  or  about 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  year  70.  He  thinks  that 


1  See  Hammond  on  Phil.  iii.  2.  But, 
if  it  should  be  doubted  whether  any  pas 
sages  in  the  Epistle  to  Philippians  do 
allude  to  Oriental  heresies,  a  doubt  in 
that  case  might  lead  to  remarking,  in  ge 
neral,  the  difference  between  those  epistles 
which  are  addressed  to  European  churches, 
and  such  as  are  addressed  to  the  churches 
in  Asia  : — I  mean  in  respect  to  the  allu 
sions  now  under  consideration — allusions 


to  Oriental  notions.  If  the  Epistles  to 
Corinth,  Thessalonica,  &c.  contain  no 
such  allusions,  and  those  to  Ephesus, 
Colossae,  Crete,  (where  Titus  was  bishop, 
as  Timothy  was  at  Ephesus,)  contain 
several,  we  probably  do  not  imagine  al 
lusions  where  there  really  were  none. 


Sect.  19. 

Vol.  v.  p.  410.  ed.  Ilorsley. 

Lardner,  Lampc-,  &c. 


B.  I.  Append.  25.]  EARLY   SECTS. 


271 


I.  it  probably  was  written  and  published  about  the  year  68,  after 
the  other  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  which  last,  he  thinks,  might  be 
published  about  63  or  64 ;  and  after  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
which,  he  thinks,  might  have  been  published  between  the 
years  52  and  63.  He  is  of  opinion,  that  St.  John's  Epistles 
and  his  Book  of  Revelation  were  published  late  in  life,  from 
the  year  80  to  95  or  96.  Out  of  this  question  arises  that  with 
which  we  are  chiefly  concerned. 

One  objection  to  the  opinion,  that  St.  John's  Gospel  was 
380  published  so  early  as  the  year  68,  is,  that  the  ancients  thought5 
he  wrote  against  heretics,  against  Gnostics  more  than  other 
sects,  and  against  Cerinthus  more  than  other  heresiarchs; 
whereas  the  year  68  was  too  early  for  this.  Now,  to  this  ob 
jection  two  answers  might  be  given : — the  first,  that  he  did  not 
write  against  heretics;  the  second,  that,  if  he  did,  he  might 
write  as  early  as  the  year  68.  It  seems  to  me,  that  St.  John 
did  write  with  some  reference  to  heretics,  and  yet  that  he  did 
publish  his  gospel  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or 
about  that  time.  He  might  write,  as  Lardner,  &c.  say  he  did, 
in  order  to  prove  that  the  Jews  were  blameable  in  rejecting 
Jesus  as  their  Messiah,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  might 
endeavour  to  rectify  wrong  conceptions  concerning  him. 

The  time  of  Cerinthus  is  uncertain.  There  is  a  story,  that 
St.  John  went  to  a  bath  at  Ephesus,  but  finding  Cerinthus  in 
the  bath,  retired,  with  some  expressions  of  indignation  or 
horror.  This  story  is  told  by  Irenasus6,  as  having  been  heard 
(by  some  uncertain  persons)  from  Polycarp7,  whom  Irenasus 
had  known  something  of  in  his  youth,  and  who  had  been  a 
disciple  of  St.  John.  The  story  does  not  gain  universal 
credit,  but  yet  it  seems  as  if  Irenasus  would  not  have  told  it 
if  it  had  contained  a  gross  anachronism  ;  and  he  was  near 
enough  to  the  time  of  St.  John  to  form  a  pretty  good  judgment 
of  that.  His  telling  the  story  seems  also  to  afford  a  pre 
sumption  that  St.  John  did  consider  Cerinthus  as  an  heretic ; 


381 


5  See  Lard.  Works,  vol.  11.  p.  161. 
vol.  vi.  pp.  210,  211.  Lardner  says,  that 
heresies  may  be  refuted  by  St.  John's 
Gospel,  and  yet  it  may  not  have  been 
written  on  purpose  to  refute  them.  Ire- 
naeus  says  expressly,  in  one  place,  (see 
Lard.  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  211,)  that  St. 
John  wrote  after  Cerinthus :  in  another, 
he  says,  St.  John  wrote,  foreseeing  the 
errors  which  then,  in  the  time  of  Irenssus, 


(178),  would  prevail:  but  does  the  latter 
saying  contradict  the  former  ?  why  might 
not  St.  John  foresee  the  heresies  which 
would  prevail  in  the  time  of  Irenacus, 
from  the  errors  of  Cerinthus  prevailing 
in  his  own  time  ?  A  supernatural  foresee 
ing  is  not  to  be  supposed;  non  est  dignus 
Deo  Vindice  nodus. 

6  Placed  A.  D.  1/8. 

7  Placed  A.  D.  108. 


272  EARLY  SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  25. 

and  a  proof  that,  in  the  judgment  of  Irenrcus,  he  did.  On  I 
the  whole,  the  opinion  that  St.  John  might  write  against 
Cerinthus,  seems  full  as  probable  as  the  contrary  opinion. 
And  it  is  generally  thought  that  there  were  heretics  before 
Cerinthus — as  the  Ebionites,  and  the  followers  of  Simon 
Magus:  St.  John  himself  mentions  the  Nicolaitans.  The 
writings  of  Ignatius1  help  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  heresy. 

But,  let  us  put  the  supposition,  that  there  were  no  heretics 
known  by  name  when  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  whenever 
that  was,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to  follow  that  St.  John  did 
not  write  against  heretics.  Heretical  opinions  flourish,  before 
they  are  formed  into  a  system,  and  professed  by  such  a  number 
of  people  that  it  is  inconvenient  for  them  to  be  without  a 
name.  There  is  more  unwritten  heresy  (and  we  might  say 
the  same  of  superstition,  enthusiasm,  and  even  of  notions  and 
principles  unconnected  with  religion,)  than  written,  at  any 
time.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that,  before  our  Saviour 
began  to  teach,  there  were  followers  of  the  Oriental  philosophy, 
and  there  were  Essenes  :  these  would  give  attention  to  religion, 
especially  to  a  teacher  in  the  wilderness,  like  John  the  Baptist, 
who  lived  a  life  of  religious  austerity  ;  these  would  incline 
to  receiving  Christianity,  but  would  not  give  up  entirely  their 
old  notions  and  habits.  Nor  can  I  conceive  any  time,  after 
the  beginning  of  our  Saviour's  ministry,  when  there  would  not 
be  Jews  inclining  to  become  Christians,  yet  thinking  with  re 
luctance  of  deserting  their  old  religion.  It  does  not  seem  to  382 
be  sufficiently  attended  to,  that  Jews  would  not  think  of  be 
coming  Christians,  if  they  were  not  religiously  disposed  ;  and, 
if  they  were  so,  they  could  not  but  be  strongly  attached  to  the 
religion  in  which  they  and  their  fathers  had  been  bred  up ; 
especially  as  it  was  a  religion  strikingly  preferable  to  any  in 
the  then  world,  and  indisputably  divine :  add,  that  Christianity 
might  be  imperfectly  published.  When  we  reason  in  this 
train,  it  must  seem  very  probable,  that  the  doctrines  of 
Cerinthus,  and  of  the  Judaizing  converts,  Ebionites,  existed 
before  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  whether  Cerinthus  himself 
professed  them  so  soon,  or  not.  I  have  no  doubt  but  St.  Paul 
wrote  against  Gnostics,  as  well  as  against  Judaizers;  yet 
Lardner  considers  the  last  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  as  written 
five  years  before  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  :  and,  if  Lardner  is 
the  author  of  the  last  section  of  the  first  book  of  the  work  on 

1  Placed  A.  D.  107. 


B.  I.  Append.  25.]  EMILY  SECTS. 


273 


I.  Heresies2,  he  favoured  the  opinion,  that  the  heresies  had  their 
origin  in  the  times  of  the  Apostles ;  which  opinion  is  con 
firmed  by  the  passages  quoted  in  the  6th  section  of  the  same 
book,  before  referred  to3  in  this  Appendix.  Particularly,  Ter- 
tullian  says,  "  Hasc  sunt,  ut  arbitror,  genera  doctrinarum 
adulterinarum,  quse  sub  Apostolis  fuisse,  ab  ipsis  Apostolis 
discimus ;"  mentioning  the  two  sorts,  under  the  general  names 
of  Marcion  and  Hehion. 

We  have  before4  just  mentioned  a  sort  of  half  Christians, 
who  had  received  only  the  baptism  of  John,  possibly  under 
383  Apollos5,  a  Jew  of  Alexandria,  where  the  Essenes  flourished 
much.  Though  these  might  have  some  notion  of  preparing 
themselves  for  Christianity,  yet  it  is  probable  they  had  an 
high  veneration  for  the  Baptist,  and  would  be  inclined  to 
mould  the  religion  of  Christ  into  some  form  like  that  to  which 
they  had  been  accustomed.  It  has  been  thought  that  they 
had  lived  in  some  desert,  and  had  been  some  kind  of  solitaries 
or  monks ;  a  sort  of  Encratitce.  There  might  not  be  any 
others  who  had  never  heard  of  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
but  there  might  be  many  who  had  too  great  a  veneration  for 
John  Baptist,  and  who  mistook  his  rank  and  office.  In  allusion 
to  these,  St.  John  the  Evangelist  might  say  those  things 
which  occur  in  his  gospel,  and  which  have  seemingly  a  ten 
dency  to  lower6  some  ideas  of  the  Baptist  entertained  by  his 
disciples. 

The  great  difficulty,  after  all,  is  that  which  arises  from 
certain  words  being  found  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  used  as 
a  sort  of  titles,  which  are  the  names  of  the  Valentinian  ceons : 
such  as  Logos7,  Zoe,  0o>?,  Monogenes,  Charis,  Aletheia.  Are 
these  terms  first  used  by  St.  John  ?  are  they  borrowed  by 
Valentinus  from  St.  John  ?  or  did  both  St.  John  and  Valen- 


a  Mr.  Hogg  wrote  part  of  the  work 
upon  Heresies.    See  the  Preface  to  it. 

3  Sect.  20. 

4  Sect.  5.    See  Acts  xix.  Voltaire,  4to. 
vol.  xxvi.  p.  111.    Michaelis's  Introtl. 
Lect.  sect.  125,  quarto. 

5  The  connexion  between  Apollos,  Acts 
xviii.  and  the  twelve  who  had  only  had 
John's  baptism,  Acts  xix.  is  not,  that  I 
see,  expressed,  but  it  seems  probable ;  it 
was  surely  a  singular  thing:  these  twelve 
must  have  lived  in  some  remote  place, 
otherwise  they  would  have  heard  of  the 

VOL.  I. 


effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  Jerusalem; 
and  what  place  so  likely  as  the  neighbour 
hood  of  Alexandria,  the  country  of  Apol 
los  ? 

0  John  i.  20,  to  ii.  11.  See  Michaelis, 
sect.  102,  103,  quarto. 

7  Logos,  John.  i.  1.  Zoe,  i.  4.  &  pas 
sim,  vi.  63,  xi.  25.  xiv.  6.  Monogenes,  i. 
14,  18.  <K,s,  i-  4,  5,  7,  8,  9.  Charis,  i. 
14, 1(5.  Aletheia,  i.  14  ;  xiv.  f).  Pleroma, 
i.  If!.  Law  opposed  to  Christ,  i.  17. 
Spiritus,  vi.  (i3.  Anastasis,  xi.  25. 
Hodos?  xiv.  ft. 

18 


274 


EARLY  SECTS.  [B.  I.  Append.  2C. 


tinus  take  them  from  some  system  ?  (heathen,  Jewish,  or  I. 
made  by  some  Christian  before  St.  John  wrote?)  I  own  I 
am  most  inclined  to  the  supposition,  that  both  St.  John  and  384. 
Valentinus  took  names  from  the  same  system.  Why  may 
not  the  case  of  St.  Paul  be  a  parallel  one  ?  AVe  find  in 
St.  Paul  orders  of  Angels  called  thrones,  dominions,  prin 
cipalities1,  powers ;  we  find  the  same  in  the  Jewish  Sephi- 
roths  :  were  these  names  first  used  by  St.  Paul  ?  are  they 
borrowed  from  him  by  the  Jewish  cabalists  ?  or  did  he  bor 
row  from  them?  or  have  both  drawn  from  some  common  source  ? 
As  it  is  not  credible  that  the  Jewish  cabalists  should  borrow 
from  St.  Paul,  or  St.  Paul  from  them,  we  must  conclude 
that  both  borrowed  from  some  common  stock.  Why  then 
may  we  not  look  upon  the  cases  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul 
as  similar  ?  especially  as  St.  John  wrote  later  than  St.  Paul. 
I  must  own,  that  the  expressions  in  question  seem  more  natural 
to  me  in  the  way  of  allusions,  than  in  the  light  of  original 
expressions.  I  would  not  be  understood  to  mean,  that  the 
Valentinian  aeons  are  exactly  the  same  with  the  titles  in  St. 
John.  Variations  easily  arise  in  such  matters ;  and  I  do  not 
find  cpws  in  the  system  of  Valentinus,  which  occurs  frequently2 
in  St.  John;  but  <j)wra  are  spirits  in  the  Egyptian  philosophy3, 
which  is  still  more  to  our  purpose,  as  it  points  out  the 
common  source.  Besides,  the  Valentinian  system  might  easily 
differ  from  that  of  other  Gnostics. 

On  the  whole  it  seems  to  me,  that  a  person  who  kept 
in  mind  the  tenets  of  the  early  heretics  would  read  St.  John's 
Gospel  with  more  of  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  written  than 
one  who  did  not. 

26.  We  might  ask,  whether  St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude4,  when 
they  mention  fallen  angels,  are  to  be  considered  as  referring 
to  any  system  of  philosophy?  or  of  Judaism  ?  or  to  some  385 
revealed  truth?  if  to  the  last,  where  that  revealed  truth  was 
found  ?  or  how  it  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  communi 
cated  to  the  Apostles5 — if  to  some  system,  whether  the  Apostles 
urged  the  fall  of  Angels  in  the  way  of  an  argumentutn  ad 
hominem  ?  But  we  will  content  ourselves  with  saying,  that 
no  regular  history  of  this  fall  seems  wanted  by  Christians, 


1  Col.  i.  16. 

2  Chap.  i.  4,  5,  7,  8,  9. 

3  See  Mich.  sect.  100,  101,  quarto. 

4  2  Pet.  ii.  4.     Jude  (i. 


5  Voltaire  (4to.  vol.  xxvn.  p.  408, 
and  elsewhere)  says,  that  no  history  of 
the  fall  of  the  angels  can  be  found  any 
where  but  in  the  JJook  of  Enoch. 


B.  I.  Append.  27,  28.]      EARLY  SECTS.  275 

I.  or  by  men ;  though  he  who  composed  the  Book  of  Enoch 
might  think  such  an  history  desirable.  It  might  not  be  amiss 
for  any  one,  who  was  thinking  on  this  subject,  to  read  Locke 
on  Ephes.  i.  10;  iii.  10;  and  vi.  12.  Bishop  Watson,  as 
Regius  Professor  of  Theology,  has  maintained  in  the  schools, 
that  the  fall  of  angels  is  taught  in  Scripture,  and  is  not 
contrary  to  reason6. 

27.  But    it  is  time  that  we  should  take  notice  of  parts 
of  Scripture  which  refer  to  Judaical  heresies.     Of  these  there 
can  be  no  doubt.   The  whole  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  in 
tended  to  rectify  the  error  of  those  who  would  mix  Judaism 
with   Christianity ;   and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  Epis 
tle    to  the   Hebrews.      We   may   also  look  at  Phil.  iii.    Col. 
ii.   11.   &c. ;   at   Titus  iii.  9.    and  Heb.  vii.    12;    but   this  is 
reasoning,  not  allusion,  and  therefore  need  not  be  insisted  on 
at  present.      As   to  texts   against    the    Ebionites,    I    am   not 

>86  aware  of  any  but  the  declarations  of  the  dignity  of  the  Person 
of  Christ ;  and  such  as  are  of  a  mixed  nature,  that  is,  such 
as  allude  to  both  Oriental  and  Jewish  heresy.  The  decla 
rations  of  the  dignity  of  Christ  are  so  general,  that  any  per 
son,  inclined  to  dispute,  might  question  their  particular  re 
ference  to  the  Ebionites.  But  it  seems  to  me,  that  Scripture 
is  all,  or  nearly  all,  occasional,  and  therefore  that  a  good 
interpreter  will  always  be  ready  to  admit  particular  applications 
of  general  expressions. 

28.  I    look   upon  those  references  in  Scripture  to  early 
heresies,    which    we    should    call    mixed,    as    being    the    most 
numerous ;    because   in   most,  or   all   newly-settled   churches, 
there   would   of  course  be   Judaizing   Christians,  as  well   as 
those  who  were  tinctured  with  the  Eastern  philosophy ;    and 
because  those  who  had  been  Essenes  might  be  considered  as 
holding  the  principles  of  Oriental  and  Judaical  heresy  united. 
The   same  general   expressions  in   the  sacred  writings  might 
include  both  :  angels  would  imply  both  those  of  the  Jews  and 
those  of  the  Easterns,  or  Egyptians,  and  the  same  is  true 
of  abstinence,  mortification,  celibacy,  &c.      It  seems  to  have 


c  I  see  now  (in  1796),  from  Mr.  Marsh's 
Translation  of  Michaelis's  4th  Edition, 
vol.  i.  p.  237,  that  Michaelis  set  aside,  or 
rejected  out  of  the  canon  of  Scripture, 
the  Epistle  of  Jude  :  but  I  cannot  think, 
that  so  ignorant  as  we  are  of  the  parti 
cular  notions  of  those  to  whom  Jude 


wrote,  any  mere  allusions  can  afford  suf 
ficient  ground  for  setting  aside  the  evi 
dence  of  antiquity  in  favour  of  the  Epistle ; 
even  though  those  allusions  contain  some 
thing  of  persuasion,  or  argument,  ground 
ed  upon  what  the  persons  addressed  would 
be  ready  to  allow. 

18 — 2 


276  EARLY  SECTS.       [B.  I.  Append.  29,  .30. 

been  the  mixture  we   are  speaking   of  which  has  occasioned    I. 
difficulties  and  disputes;   one  interpreter  referring  expressions 
to    one    kind    of  heresy,   another   to  another  kind ;    and   this 
mixture,  if  once  understood  and  admitted,  would  solve  diffi 
culties,  and  seemingly  would  remove  all  occasion  of  dispute. 

St.  John's  Gospel  may  be  intended  to  refute  Ebionites 
as  much  as  Gnostics.  Cerinthus  was  probably  something  of 
both,  and,  if  we  review  the  passages  already  cited,  we  shall 
find  some  mixture  in  most  of  them  ;  and,  if  we  look  into 
comments,  we  shall  find  that  such  mixture  has  occasioned 
controversy,  but  that  it  has  not  been  observed  and  allowed. 
Here,  therefore,  we  close  what  we  had  to  say  upon  Scripture,  387 
as  receiving  explanation  from  ancient  heresies. 

29.  But,  when  we  set  out  with  this  subject,  we  observed, 
that  it  would  prepare  us  for  reading,  not  only  the  Scriptures, 
but   the    ancient    Christian    Fathers :    a  very    great    part    of 
their  employment  was  opposing  heresy,  therefore  a  knowledge 
of  heresy  must  throw  great  light  upon  their  expressions.     More 
over,  a  mature  consideration  of  the  nature  of  ancient   here 
sies  would  prevent  our  being  misled  by  those  calumnies  and 
misrepresentations  which  indiscreet   zeal   has   occasioned1.     A 
right    idea   of  the    purity  of  Oriental  morality  would  make 
us    very  backward    to   credit    accounts   of   impurities    in    the 
Gnostic  sects  ;   though  we  might  admit,  that  their  very  purity 
might  make  them,  thinking  no  evil,  use  the  assistance  of  female 
disciples  in  preaching,  or  in  any  of  the  sacred  ministerial  func 
tions. 

30.  An  insight  into  the  nature  of  heresy  would  make  us 
candid  to  those  writers  who  differed  from   us.      We  should 
acknowledge,  that  no  other  cause  of  heresy  needs  be  assigned, 
than  a  desire  of  solving  difficulties,  which  have  perplexed  the 
generality  of  those  who  have  considered  them ;    at  least,  no 
other  than  this,  helped  forward  with  a  little  vanity,  and  par 
tiality  for  one's  own  inventions. 

And  reflexion  on  our  present  subject  would  make  us,  as 
we  were  reading  any  ancient  Christian  author,  constantly  dis 
tinguish  between  an  error  professed,  and  one  charged  by 
adversaries  upon  those  who  did  not  profess  it.  Nay,  such 
reflexion  would  suggest  apologies  for  the  very  authors  whose 
accounts  we  thought  ourselves  obliged  to  set  aside.  When 
we  compared  times,  places,  customs,  traditions,  and  saw  the 

1  See  Baylc's  Calnitcs ;  Lard.  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  240. 


B.  I.  Append.  31.]          EARLY  SECTS. 


277 


I.  imperfect    records  they  had  to  judge  from,  and  how   natural 

388  it   was  for  them,   in   their    trying    situations,    to    be    agitated 
with  zeal,  we  should  feel  an  apprehension  that  we,  under  the 
same  disadvantages,  might  have  run  into  more  faulty  excesses 
than  they  did. 

31.  We  may  conclude  this  Appendix,  by  letting  our 
eye  glance  from  remote  antiquity  to  heresy  of  more  modern 
date,  Montanus,  Praxeas,  and  others,  ran  off  gradually  from 
the  Eastern  philosophy,  though  one  somewhat  less  visionary 
remained.  Indeed  Mani  persevered  in  the  old  philosophy, 
but  his  attachment  was  singular  :  he  was  a  Persian.  There 
seem  always  to  have  been  heresies  about  the  Person  of  Christ, 
because  his  Incarnation  is  something  above  our  comprehension. 
Had  that  been  acknowledged,  perhaps  controversy  and  heresy 
might  have  ceased  ;  but  it  only  occasioned  new  endeavours  to 
solve  and  explain,  and  therefore  new  heresies.  Regular,  pro 
fessed  disputes  about  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  of  God 
with  the  Father,  did  not  rage  till  the  time  of  Arius,  pretty 
early  in  the  fourth  century ;  and  the  different  solutions  of 
the  Incarnation,  offered  by  Nestorius  and  Eutyches,  occupied 
the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  with  the  help  of  the  Pelagian  con 
troversy  concerning  the  principles  of  human  agency.  About 
the  same  time  many  heresies  were  new  formed  and  fashioned 
out  of  those  which  had  gone  before.  In  the  seventh  century 
the  orthodox  notion  of  "  One  Christ,"  or  of  the  Unity  of  his 
Person,  pressed  forcibly,  struck  out  the  sect  of  Monothelites2; 

389  and,  in  the  eighth,  the  difficulties  attending  the  Incarnation  gave 
rise  to  the  Adoptionarii.     In  the  ninth,  the  Christian  world  was 
divided  about  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  Pela 
gian  controversy  sprung  up,  revived.     Afterwards,  controversy 
turned  upon  the  Sacraments,  and  various  heresies  sprung  up. 
Since  that  time,   the   growing  errors   and   oppressions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  have  divided  men  into  parties;  and  those  have 
been  most  branded  as  heretics  who  have  separated  from  her. 

In  our  own  days,  we  are  only  reviving  old  heresies,  and 
saying  the  same  things  over  again,  with  as  much  spirit  and 
animosity  as  if  they  had  never  been  said  before. 


2  Cave's  names  of  the  sixteen  centuries. 
1.  Apostolicum.  2.  Gnosticum.  3.  No- 
vatianum.  4.  Arianum.  5.  Nestorianum. 
6.  Eutychianum.  7-  Monotheliticum. 
8.  Eiconoclasticum.  9  Photianura,  10, 


Obscurum.  11.  Hildebrandinum.  12. 
Waldense.  13.  Scholasticum.  14.  Wick- 
levianum.  15.  Synodale.  16.  Reform- 
atum. 


[II.  i.  1,2. 

BOOK    II. 

OF   POLEMICAL   DIVINITY. 


CHAPTER    I. 

OF  THE  NATURE  AND  EFFECTS  OF  CONTROVERSY. 

1.  THE  right   method  of  conducting  debates  or  contro 
versies  seems  to  be  one  of  the  subjects  which  every  man  should 
attend  to,  who  means  to  study  all  things  useful  for  a  Divine. 
Suppose  him  never  to  engage  in  controversy  himself,  yet,  in 
reading  with  a  mere  view  to  acquiring  knowledge,   he   must 
peruse  many  controversial  writers ;    arguments  of  the  greatest 
weight,  urged  with  the  greatest  spirit,  are  to  be  found  in  them; 
and  he  will  not  fail  to  receive  some  sort  of  bad  impressions 
from  them,  if  he  comes  to  read  them  without  any  fixed  prin 
ciples  ;    impressions  of  party  malevolence,  of  indiscreet  zeal, 
or  perhaps  of  disgust  for  religion. 

But  if  he,  at  any  time,  engages  in  the  defence  of  reli 
gious  truth,  (what  he  thinks  such,)  against  error  and  heresy, 
he  will  want  right  notions  of  controversy  still  more  :  without 
them,  he  will  be  sure  to  hurt  the  general  interests  of  religion, 
if  not  the  particular  interests  of  that  cause  which  he  under 
takes  to  defend. 

Whether,  therefore,  controversy  be  thought  an  evil  or 
a  good  (it  may  be  made  either),  the  nature  and  effects  of 
it  should  be  considered ;  and  no  opportunity  seems  better  for  391 
us  to  consider  it  than  the  present :  after  we  have  gone  through 
that  part  of  theology  which  relates  to  all  Christians  in  com 
mon,  and  before  we  come  to  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of 
particular  sects.  In  what  is  past,  we  have  some  controversy 
with  infidels;  in  what  is  to  come,  we  may  have  much  more 
with  our  Christian  brethren.  The  rules  of  controversy,  before 
we  had  seen  any  thing  of  religious  dispute,  would  have  been 
uninteresting;  and  to  delay  them  till  we  had  finished  all  sub 
jects  of  discussion,  would  be  to  lose  many  good  opportuni 
ties  of  using  and  applying  them. 

2.  Controversy  may  be  made  a  good  or  an  evil,  as  it  is 
used.     All  seem  to  allow  that  it   has  its  advantages  and  its 


II.  i.  3.]  CONTROVERSY.  279 

I.  mischiefs.  What  would  be  most  desirable  would  be,  to  avoid 
the  mischiefs,  and  to  acquire  the  advantages ;  but  it  may  be 
questioned,  whether  that  be  possible,  in  the  nature  of  things. 
Dr.  Powell  delivered  a  Charge,  on  the  subject  of  lessening  the 
faults  of  controversy,  to  his  Archdeaconry,  in  which  [he  says, 
"it  does  not  seem  possible  to  remove  the  mischiefs,  and  at 
the  same  time  preserve  the  advantages1:"  which  may  rather 
mean,  that  it  is  not  to  be  expected,  or  that  it  is  inconceivable, 
on  a  footing  of  experience  and  probability,  than  that  it  is, 
strictly  speaking,  impossible.  "  The  advantages,"  says  this 
most  able  writer,  "  arise  from  the  debates  themselves;  the  evils, 
wholly  or  principally,  from  the  faults  of  those  who  conduct 
them~:"  as  nearly,  therefore,  as  those  faults  can  be  conceived 
to  be  remedied,  so  nearly  can  we  conceive  ourselves  to  approach 
to  perfect  controversy.  The  conception  of  a  controversy 
392  wholly  beneficial,  is  not  an  absurd  conception  :  in  theory  there 
is  such  a  controversy,  whatever  there  may  be  in  practice. 

I  do  not  see  that  this  assertion  contradicts  any  thing  that 
Dr.  Powell  says  ;  but  the  very  appearance  of  contradicting 
him  is  unpleasant,  as  I  have  a  much  greater  opinion  of  his 
judgment  than  of  my  own.  Permit  me  to  recommend  his 
work  to  your  perusal :  it  is  worthy  of  a  perusal  of  the  most 
attentive  kind.  Indeed,  we  scarce  ever  see  the  merit  of  his 
writing  on  the  first  reading ;  but,  when  we  look  back  calmly 
on  what  he  has  said,  and  examine  every  expression,  as  well  as 
the  manner  in  which  his  thoughts  are  connected  together,  then 
we  perceive  that  nothing  could  be  said  more  properly,  more 
clearly,  more  convincingly,  or  more  beautifully.  We  find  all 
the  discretion  and  accuracy  of  age,  and  all  the  warmth  of 
youthful  benevolence ;  all  the  precision  and  correctness  of 
the  man  of  science  and  erudition,  with  all  the  propriety  and 
practicability  (if  I  may  so  speak)  of  the  man  of  the  world. 
I  am  at  all  times  ready  to  pay  this  tribute  to  his  worth,  but 
most  desirous  of  paying  it  when  I  seem  in  any  way  to  differ 
from  him.  It  is  but  of  little  consequence  to  add,  that  what 
I  shall  say  will  resemble  what  he  says,  in  many  things,  though 
taken  chiefly  from  some  papers  which  I  wrote  ten  years,  I 
suppose,  before  his  volume  was  published.  But  to  return. 
3.  Though  the  idea  of  a  controversy  wholly  beneficial 
may  not  be  absurd,  yet,  perhaps,  it  may  be  thought  useless. 
Where  is  the  good,  many  are  apt  to  say,  of  amusing  ourselves 

1  Powell's  Discourses,  p.  298.  2  Ibidem. 


280 


CONTROVERSY. 


[II.  i.  4. 


with  Utopian  schemes  of  imaginary  perfection?  But  it  seems  I. 
to  me,  as  if  studying  ideal  perfection  might  generally  be  made 
useful,  even  when  the  actual  attainment  of  it  is  not  to  be 
expected.  This  seems  to  be  allowed  in  physics,  where  we 
speak  of  bodies  as  perfectly  elastic ;  of  the  air-pump,  and  of  393 
the  flight  of  projectiles,  as  if  there  was  a  perfect  vacuum, 
when  really  the  effect  of  the  atmosphere  is  considerable.  It 
is  also  allowed  in  the  fine  arts ;  as  appears  from  the  discourses 
of  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  which  are  capable  of  being  extended 
beyond  painting,  to  poetry,  music,  or  to  the  fine  arts  in  gene 
ral.  I  do  not  see  why  studying  ideal  perfection  would  not 
be  equally  useful  in  researches  concerning  civil  government1, 
laws,  education.  Practical  rules,  formed  upon  ideas  of  per 
fection,  would  be  the  most  effectual  and  successful ;  would  be 
most  likely  to  promote  perpetual  improvement,  and  a  perpetual 
approach  towards  perfection  in  reality.  Nor  does  any  reason 
appear  why  the  same  effects  should  not  follow  from  studying 
ideal  perfection  in  controversy.  To  press  forward2  to  ideal 
perfection  in  morals  seems  to  be  an  endeavour  truly  Christian. 
In  the  last  chapter  of  the  preceding  book,  we  ventured  to 
imagine  how  men  might  possibly  have  improved  by  reason  and 
experience,  without  Revelation,  thinking  that  even  such  imagi 
nation  might  have  its  use.  If  we  settle  what  perfection  is, 
we  may  still  fall  short  of  it;  but  all  our  endeavours  will  be 
rightly  employed  ;  whereas,  if  we  aim  at  something  wrong, 
then  even  our  diligence  will  lead  us  farther  and  farther  from 
what  is  right. 

4.    There  is   the  more  need  of  imagining  to  ourselves  a 

O  O 

faultless  controversy,  as  prejudices  have  been  entertained 
against  religious  controversy  in  general.  Some  men  seem  to 
speak  of  it  as  if  it  were  essentially  and  radically  evil ;  and, 
while  such  prejudices  prevail,  it  will  be  difficult  to  get  men  394 
to  study  it  calmly,  and  regulate  it  to  the  best  advantage. 
Common-place  abuse  weighs  but  little  with  a  thinking  man, 
but  we  would  wish  all  men  to  join  in  improving  religious 
controversy.  Sometimes  we  hear  even  the  clergy3  inveighing 
against  polemic  divines,  as  if  they  were  public  nuisances,  and 


1  I  look  upon  Mr.  Hume's  "  Idea  of  a 
perfect  Commonwealth,"  to  be  an  useful 
political  Essay.  The  Americans  may 
have  found  it  such.  I  once  wrote  on 
penal  laws,  on  the  same  plan. 


2  See  Luke  xvi.  16;  and  1  Cor.  iii.  1, 
2;  also  Phil.  i.  9  ;  and  iii.  13,  and  the  con 
clusion  of  St.  Peter's  2d  Epistle. 

3  See  Warburton  on  the  Holy  Spirit, 
p.  301). 


II.  i.  4.] 


CONTROVERSY. 


281 


I.    as  if  nothing  good  was  to  be  attained  but  by  a  total  forbear 
ance  from  debate  and  discussion. 

How  is  this  prejudice  to  be  cured?  those  who  entertain 
it  should  be  called  upon  to  think  whether  there  is  really 
any  thing  wrong  or  hateful  in  discussing  the  difficulties  which 
attend  researches  into  religion  ?  or  whether  what  disgusts 
them  is  any  thing  more  than  the  incidental  evil  which  arises 
from  such  discussion,  when  carried  on  in  a  faulty  manner? 
There  is,  to  be  sure,  much  acrimony  in  religious  dispute; 
and  much  perplexity  arises  from  it  to  the  reader,  and  much 
scandal  to  the  people4;  but  needs  this  be  so?  may  not  men 
speak  the  truth5  in  love  ?  may  they  not  peaceably  oppose  each 
other  in  argument,  and,  when  they  fail  of  mutual  conviction, 
practice  mutual  forbearance6?  If  this  were  done,  no  scandal 
would  arise,  and  perplexity  would  soon  be  changed  into  mild 
resignation  to  the  ignorance  necessarily  attendant  on  limited 
faculties. 

There  have  been  disputes  on  other  subjects  besides  religion, 
without  so  much  being  said  against  them;  even  on  mathematics 
themselves ;  and.  seemingly,  the  more  loose  and  indefinite  dis 
putes  have  been,  the  greater  acrimony  they  have  occasioned. 
395  That  is,  where  the  most  diffidence  has  been  required,  there 
the  least  has  been  shewn.  This  is  observable  of  political 
disputes  in  particular.  It  is  folly,  no  doubt ;  but  shall  it 
hinder  men  from  trying  the  force  of  each  others  reasonings 
by  opposition  ?  no,  the  faults  should  be  proscribed,  but  the 
reasonings  preserved. 

Though  there  is  incidental  evil  arising  from  religious  con 
troversy,  there  is  also  incidental  good.  This  is  so  well  de 
scribed  by  Dr.  Powell,  that  I  cannot  do  better  than  refer  you 
to  his  Charge7.  Now,  as  we  suffer  the  incidental  good  of  other 
disputes  to  take  off  our  prejudices  against  them,  it  seems  hard 
that  we  should  not  do  the  same  in  religious  disputes.  Oppo 
sition  to  the  measures  of  the  English  ministry,  in  whom  is 
lodged  the  executive  power,  when  shewn  in  parliamentary 
debates,  according  to  theory,  must  seem  inconsistent  with 
loyalty  and  allegiance ;  but  our  feeling,  that  it  has  incidentally 
been  the  means  of  preserving  many  rights  of  the  subject,  and 


4  Our  Homily  must  be  supposed  to 
refer  to  fact,  when  it  says,  "among  all 
kinds  of  contention,  none  is  more  hurtful 
than  is  contention  in  matters  of  religion." 


Homily  12th. 

5  Ephes.  iv.  15. 

6  Ephes.  iv.  2. 

7  Powell's  Discourses,  p.  295—297. 


282  CONTROVERSY.  [11.1.5,6. 

occasioning  much  improvement,  mitigates  our  aversion   to  it,    I. 
and   almost   clears  it   of  blame.      Attention  to   the  incidental 
good   effects   of  religious   disputes    might    produce    the    same 
indulgence. 

5.  There  seems  to  be  an  inconsistency  in  our  manner 
of  treating  those  who  are  advocates  in  courts  of  justice.  The 
popular  clamour  is,  that  they  will  maintain  any  thing,  right 
or  wrong,  &c.,  and  yet  they  are  not,  in  fact,  abhorred  or 
avoided ;  they  are  received  as  private  friends,  and  promoted 
to  be  public  deciders  of  contentions  about  our  most  important 
rights.  How  can  this  be  accounted  for,  but  from  some  secret 
persuasion  in  our  own  minds,  the  nature  of  which  we  do  not 
distinctly  see,  that  what  appears  wrong  at  first  sight  is  capable 
of  some  justification  ?  Let  us  suppose  an  advocate  to  make  396 
an  apology  for  his  conduct ;  it  may  be  the  means  of  intro 
ducing  into  our  minds  a  favourable  idea  of  controversy  in 
general. 

'  You  accuse  me  of  neglecting  truth ;  I  have  no  concern 
with  truth;  the  care  of  that  belongs  solely  to  the  judge.  The 
business  of  the  whole  court  of  judicature  is,  indeed,  to  see 
to  the  bottom  of  a  difficult  question ;  but  that  end  will  be  best 
attained  if  I  am  employed  merely  to  search  out  arguments 
on  one  side,  and  the  advocate  who  is  opposed  to  me,  those 
on  the  other;  and  the  judge  has  no  labour  but  that  of  com 
paring  our  arguments  together.  The  judge  must  wish  it 
to  be  so  ;  it  cannot  be  his  desire  to  have  both  to  find  out  the 
arguments  and  to  balance  them  :  and  the  advocate  must  wish 
it  so ;  as  it  would  be  very  difficult,  and  very  rash,  for  him 
to  attempt  a  balancing  of  arguments,  before  he  knew  what 
would  be  thrown  into  the  scale  opposite  to  his  own.  Besides, 
to  plead  and  to  judge  require  different  faculties.  If  I  attempt 
to  judge  I  damp  my  invention,  and  some  forcible  argument 
will  be  lost,  or  missed.  Inventing,  enforcing,  arranging,  may 
occupy  the  mind,  so  as  to  leave  it  very  little  power  of  judging. 
And  if  the  judge  attempts  to  invent,  or  enforce,  he  becomes 
prejudiced  in  favour  of  his  own  inventions,  he  gets  heated, 
and  his  powers  of  judging  are  greatly  impaired.' 

6.  What  has  now  been  said  in  the  person  of  the  advocate, 
with  regard  to  controversies  in  courts  of  justice,  may  be  made 
general,  or  applied  to  controversies  of  all  kinds.  In  debating 
any  question,  there  are  three  departments:  the /or,  the  against, 
and  the  determination.  If  he  who  has  the  first  committed 


II.i.7,8.] 


CONTROVERSY. 


283 


I.   to  him  has  nothing  to  do  but   to  find  out  and  enforce  argu- 

397  ments  on  one  side,  he  will  exhibit  a  stronger  body  of  argument 
on  that  side  than  could  be  furnished  in  any  other  way ;  and 
the  same  is  true  of  him  whose  task  is  to  produce  arguments 
on  the  other  side.    Both  these  persons  may  be  heated,  and  may 
be  prejudiced,  each  in  favour  of  his  own  arguments;   but  such 
prejudices  will  be,  in  a  great  measure,  removed  by  him  who 
has  the  third  department.      If  he  has  his  judgment  perfectly 
cool,   his  mind  free   from  all  fatigue  and  hurry,   his  opinion 
unbiassed,  he   will  be  able   to  make  a  much  better  decision, 
than  if  he  had  taken  all  the  departments  to  himself;  besides, 
that  his  views  will  be  much   more  deep  and  comprehensive1. 

7.  For  the  sake  of  simplicity,  we  speak  as  if  one  depart 
ment  was  of  course  committed  to  one  person  only  :  but  this 
need  not  be  always  the  case ;  sometimes  great  advantage  may 
be  reaped  from  a  number  being  concerned  in  each  department 
In  a  number  there  will  be  animation,  and  at  the  same  time 
discretion :  each  individual  catches  spirit  from  the  rest,  by 
sympathy  or  emulation ;  and  yet  each  hinders  the  others  from 
indulging  their  peculiar  fancies.  Besides,  it  sometimes  hap 
pens  that,  in  order  to  spread  truth,  you  must  overturn2  error. 
This  may  require  great  courage  and  force ;  for  men  are  often 
tenacious  of  their  errors*  and  exasperated  when  their  prejudices 
are  attacked.  A  single  individual  may  fail  in  this  task,  when  a 
number  may  succeed. 

8.  It  is  possible  that  considerable  good  might  be  attained 
in  the  investigation  of  truth,  by  the  for  and  against  and  the 
determination  being  kept  separate,  though  we  suppose  the 

398  three  parties  to  have  different  interests ;  but  it  does  not  seem 
as  if  controversy  would  arrive  at  perfection,  till  these  three 
came  to  co-operate,   and   to  act  as   different  members  of  the 
same  society,  under  the  guidance  of  a  common  understanding. 
The   only   difficulty   would    be,   to  give  them   sufficient  force 
and  energy  ;  there  would  be  a  temptation  to  remissness,  if  no 

.  real  opposition  of  views  and  interests  subsisted.  And  this  may 
be  the  ground  of  the  opinion,  that  we  cannot  have  the  ad 
vantages  of  controversy  without  its  mischiefs. 


1  In  making  watches  (the  nicest  of 
machines),  I  suppose  one  man  gives 
himself  up  to  one  part,  another  to  an 
other,  and  at  last  one  is  wholly  employed 
in  putting  the  parts  together.  The  separa 


tion  of  tasks  seems  still  more  needful, 
where  some  of  them  disqualify  the  mind 
for  others. 

2  Dr.  Powell  says  something  to  this 
purpose,  pp.  296,  297. 


284 


CONTROVERSY. 


[II.  i.  9. 


On  account  of  this  difficulty,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  dis-  I. 
tinguish  controversy  into  voluntary  and  involuntary.  Volun 
tary  is  when  the  parties  do  not  decidedly  differ  as  to  the 
matter  in  question,  but  have  doubts  in  common,  which  they 
wish  to  have  cleared  up  by  debate:  involuntary  is  when,  from 
the  beginning,  there  are  two  opposite  opinions,  and  each  party 
expects  his  own  opinion  to  appear  the  most  true,  after  the 
discussion.  This  sort  I  call  involuntary,  because  no  party 
chooses  to  have  his  opinion  controverted ;  and  each  is  driven 
into  a  dispute  by  a  desire  to  defend  what  he  thinks  the  truth. 
Voluntary  controversy  has  been  often  made  a  part  of  educa 
tion;  or  an  exercise  for  minds  grown  to  maturity,  which  may 
be  considered  as  a  sort  of  education  in  a  more  extensive  sense1. 
From  what  may  be  seen  (especially  in  foreign  countries)  of  the 
spirit  with  which  scholastic  disputations  are  carried  on,  we  may 
form  an  idea  how  even  voluntary  controversy  may  be  ani 
mated,  or  even  raised  to  the  vigour  and  energy  of  involuntary. 
There  seems  to  want  nothing  but  public  celebrities,  in  which 
emulation  and  love  of  honour  or  fear  of  shame  are  called 
forth  ;  where  applause  and  victory  are  rewards,  followed  some 
times,  perhaps,  by  what  are  commonly  thought  more  sub-  399 
stantial  distinctions.  Involuntary  controversialists  seldom  want 
a  spur ;  but  if  at  any  time  they  should,  they  might  be  made 
the  champions  of  two  opposite  parties.  In  the  natural  course  of 
improvement,  involuntary  controversy  would  keep  approach 
ing  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  form  and  disposition  of  voluntary  ; 
in  which  form  it  ought,  if  possible,  always  to  be  carried  on. 

9.  We  will  conclude  this  chapter  with  giving,  from  what 
has  been  said,  an  idea  of  an  useful  controversy  ;  though  a 
controversy  may  take  place  in  such  various  circumstances,  that 
it  may  be  difficult  to  use  general  expressions  which  shall  not 
belong  to  one  sort  more  than  to  another.  A  controversy  may 
be  verbal  or  written ;  or  it  may  be  partly  one  and  partly  the 
other.  It  may  take  up  a  few  hours,  or  it  may  take  up  twenty 
years,  and  so  on ;  but  the  candid  will  make  allowances  for 
expressions  that  seem  to  suit  one  sort  more  than  another.  All 
the  parties  concerned,  then,  set  out  with  a  strong  and  ardent 
love  of  truth :  they  are  all  sensible  of  difficulties,  and  they 
think  a  free  debate  would  be  the  most  likely  means  of  clearing 
them  up.  They  agree  to  unite  in  trying  this  method.  They 


1  Is  an  amicable  suit  in  Chancery  any 
thing  like  voluntary  controversy  ?  or  is 


it  mere  form,    as  to  the   controversial 
part? 


II.  i.  9.]  CONTROVERSY.  285 

I.  lay  down  a  proposition,  containing  the  subject  to  be  discussed  : 
they  give  to  a  due  number  of  persons,  duly  qualified,  the  task 
of  inventing  and  enforcing  all  possible  arguments  for  that  pro 
position  ;  and  they  take  the  same  care,  with  regard  to  argu 
ments  against  it ;  and  they  look  well  to  the  person  or  persons 
who  shall  compare  and  balance  the  arguments  adduced,  and 
give  a  final  determination.  A  competent  time  having  been 
employed  in  preparation,  the  arguments  for  are  produced  and 
enforced :  these  being  examined,  and  any  weaknesses  in  them 
or  fallacies  exposed,  the  arguments  against  appear  in  like  man- 
400  ner :  a  reply  is  made  on  one  side  and  the  other,  till  there 
appears  to  be  a  waste  of  time  and  attention  in  proceeding 
farther;  and  then  the  determination  begins.  Sometimes,  per 
haps,  it  may  begin  according  to  some  rule  formed  on  a  num 
ber  of  instances,  which  becomes  customary  :  this  determination 
is  dispassionate  and  candid,  neat,  orderly,  precise;  free  from 
bias  to  one  side  or  the  other ;  assuming  an  air  of  dignity  and 
superiority,  which  may  have  the  effect  of  silencing  the  advo 
cates,  in  case  they  shall  have  contracted  any  prejudices  by  the 
earnestness  of  pleading;  and  marking  such  a  benevolent  anxiety 
for  truth  (and  justice,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  species  of 
truth),  such  an  elevated  respect  for  what  is  right  and  generally 
beneficial,  as  may  render  mere  victory  and  superiority  in  dis 
pute  contemptible.  Such  a  determination  would  seldom  fail, 
if  ever,  of  promoting  improvement ;  and  it  would,  in  some 
sense,  always  give  satisfaction  :  because  it  would  leave  every 
one  satisfied  that  every  thing  had  been  done  which  could  be 
done,  with  the  faculties  and  opportunities  afforded,  at  the 
time,  by  Divine  Providence. 

It  must  be  owned  that  such  disputations  and  conferences 
as  have  been  hitherto  instituted,  for  the  purpose  of  deciding 
doubts  and  dissensions  respecting  religion,  have  not  been 
attended  with  success.  We  might  instance  in  the  Disputations 
at  Oxford,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  and  the  Hampton- 
Court  Conference,  in  the  reign  of  James  the  First ;  but  it 
would  not  be  very  difficult  to  assign  reasons  for  the  failure 
of  such  discussions.  Sterne  may  have  had  an  idea  not  unlike 
ours  when  he  said,  "  I  reverence  truth  as  much  as  any  body  ; 
and,  when  it  has  slipped  us,  if  a  man  will  but  take  me  by  the 
hand,  and  go  quietly  and  search  for  it,  as  for  a  thing  we  have 
both  lost,  and  can  neither  of  us  do  well  without,  I'll  go  to  the 
world's  end  with  him  : — But  I  hate  disputes," 


[II.  ii.  1. 

I. 

CHAPTER    II.  401 

OF    THE    QUALITIES    OF   A    CONTROVERSIALIST. 

1.  IN  each  controversy  we  suppose  three  characters, 
though  it  is  possible  that  one  man  may  assume  more  charac 
ters  than  his  ow^  ,  two  advocates  and  a  judge.  In  order  to 
make  controversy  as  useful  as  it  may  be  made,  we  must  con 
sider  those  qualities  which  each  of  these  persons  ought  to 
have,  or  to  acquire  ;  and  those  which  each  ought  to  avoid. 
If  it  be  asked,  whether  we  suppose  controversy  here  to  be 
voluntary  or  mvoluntary,  we  may  answer,  that  all  involuntary 
controversy  ought  to  be  carried  on  as  if  it  were  voluntary, 
or  as  nearly  as  possible ;  and,  therefore,  that  we  have  the  idea 
of  the  voluntary  sort. 

Our  two  advocates  ought  to  have  the  same  qualities;  and 
therefore  we  may  say,  that  we  will  first  treat  of  the  qualities 
of  the  advocate,  and  then  of  those  of  the  judge.  Qualities 
may  be  good  or  bad.  AVe  will  first  treat  of  the  good  qualities 
of  an  advocate,  or  of  the  qualities  of  a  good  advocate;  and  then 
of  his  bad  qualities,  or  faults ;  that  is,  of  the  faults  which 
he  ought  particularly  to  study  to  avoid,  as  being  those  to 
which  he  is  most  liable. 

An  advocate  may  have  some  good  qualities  respecting 
himself  (as  it  may  be  called),  and  some  relating  to  his  adver 
sary.  And  he  may  have  faults  respecting  both.  Those  which 
respect  himself  may  be  conceived  as  subsisting  in  his  character 
before  he  becomes  an  advocate;  or  such  as  appear  in  his  pre 
paring  himself  for  controversy ;  or  such  as  appear  in  the 
actual  controverting ;  or  such  as  appear  in  his  hearing  objec-  402 
tions  to  what  he  has  advanced,  and  in  his  answering. 

First,  then,  as  to  the  good  qualities  of  an  advocate  respect 
ing  himself,  in  his  character,  before  he  becomes  an  advocate. 
He  ought  to  be  one  who  has  been  brought  up  to  feel  a  strong 
love  of  truth,  though  he  does  not  judge  finally  what  is  truth ; 
so  as  to  prevent  his  using  any  argument  in  which  he  sees 
a  fallacy  distinctly,  though  he  may  use  arguments  which 
he  faintly  and  imperfectly  sees  what  he  thinks  a  possibility 
of  answering.  He  ought  to  have  had  a  regular  improvement, 
in  knowledge;  to  be  in  habits  of  industry,  patience,  perse 
verance  ;  to  have  powers  of  inventing  and  distinguishing ;  na 
tural  animation,  or  warmth,  tempered  with  prudence ;  powers 


II.  ii.  2,  3.]      QUALITIES    OF    A    CONTROVERSIALIST.  287 

I.  of  pleasing;  and,  if  he  has  some  ambition  and  love  of  honour, 
we  will  not  reckon  them  amongst  the  bad  qualities,  but  the 
good,  so  long  as  they  are  not  perverted  or  abused. 

In  preparing  for  controversy,  he  should  have  keen  pene 
tration  ;  should  acquire  comprehensive  views  of  various  sub 
jects  communicating  with  each  other ;  he  should  have  power 
of  bringing  shapeless  hints  and  surmises  into  form  ;  neatness 
of  conception  and  arrangement,  so  that  the  series  of  his  topics 
should  have  force  from  the  manner  of  their  succession :  he 
should  have  strength  of  mind  to  bear  suspense  of  judgment, 
TO  eTre'^eic,  because  a  temporary  suspense  of  judgment  is 
frequently  necessary,  in  order  to  acquire  an  opinion  which 
needs  not  afterwards  be  given  up. 

In  the  actual  pleading,  he  should  have  copia  verborum, 
used  so  as  non  obstrepere  sibi  ipsi;  perspicuity,  so  as  non 
off'undere  nebulas  ;  he  should  have  ornament  to  attract,  CTTTOV^ 
to  rouse,  776)09  to  interest  and  affect :  yet  all  this,  without 
403  departing  from  simplicity,  without  giving  up  the  form  of 
reasoning  and  precise  argument. 

During  the  time  that  he  was  to  be  the  hearer,  he  should 
give  unremitting  attention ,•  he  should  be  acute  in  discerning 
fallacy,  ready  in  turning  a  thought  into  a  new  shape,  and 
bringing  it  round  to  his  own  side ;  yet  not  afraid  to  appear 
stupid  when  he  is  dissatisfied  with  what  is  urged  as  allow 
able  :  open  to  conviction,  and  frank  and  brave  in  acknow 
ledging  it. 

So  much  for  the  good  qualities  of  the  advocate  respecting 
himself;  now  we  come  to  those  respecting  his  adversary. 

2.  I  should  reckon  amongst  the  good  qualities  of  an  advo 
cate  which  relate  to  his  adversary,  a  generous  emulation.    This 
should  be  softened  and  ennobled  by  a  benevolent  and  respect 
ful  carriage  and  manner,  as  to  one  engaged  with  himself  in  the 
pursuit  of  truth  and  rectitude.     Yet,  at  the  same  time  that 
an  advocate's  manner  was  kind  and  respectful  to  his  adversary, 
it  should  be  undaunted,  open,  and  frank.      He  should,  how 
ever,  be  patient,  not  easily  provoked ;   and  if,  at  any  time,  his 
opinion  was  necessarily  such  as  seemed  harsh  and  hostile,  still 
he  should  keep  strictly  to  those  laws  of  war  which  the  nature 
of  the  contention  required. 

3.  The  faults  of  the  advocate  arise  in  the  same  circum 
stances  with  his  good  qualities. 

His  character  may  be  such  that  he  may  habitually  love 


288  QUALITIES    OF    A    CONTROVERSIALIST.  [II.  ii.  4 

victory  more  than  truth.     Instead  of  having  acquired  know-    I. 
ledge,  he  may  be   one  who  thinks   to  succeed   by   a   display 
of  words ;  it  may  be  his  turn  to  affect  strokes  of  genius,  and 
look  upon  application  as  illiberal  drudgery :  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  his   character  may   be  such   that   he  may   be  pedantic, 
rely   wholly  on  dry  cold   argumentation,  without   thinking  of  404 
making  his  arguments  assume  a  pleasing  form. 

In  preparing  for  controversy,  he  may  give  way  to  any 
faulty  bias  in  his  character.  He  may  content  himself  with 
superficial  or  narrow  views ;  the  topics  that  he  hits  upon  he 
may  leave  unfinished,  or  ill  arranged;  and  he  may  be  so 
impatient  as  to  adopt  any  crude  notion,  rather  than  bear  a 
state  of  suspense  till  he  has  maturely  considered  the  grounds 
and  reasons  upon  which  he  should  proceed. 

In  pleading,  he  may  want  words;  or  if  he  have  them,  may 
throw  them  into  confused  heaps.  He  may  want  perspicuity, 
ornament,  force,  sentiment ;  or,  having  these,  he  may  shew 
too  clearly  that  they  are  the  principal  objects  of  his  attention. 

While  he  is  hearing  or  receiving  the  arguments  of  his 
antagonist,  he  may  be  sometimes  inattentive ;  or  too  easily 
confounded  by  a  specious  argument ;  or,  dreading  the  appear 
ance  of  stupidity,  he  may  pretend  to  understand  an  argument 
when  it  is  really  unmeaning;  he  may  catch  at  any  seeming 
advantage,  which,  when  he  has  got  it,  turns  out  to  bring  him 
more  harm  than  good.  It  will  be  also  a  great  fault  if  he  be  dis 
ingenuous,  and  shews  that  he  wishes  not  to  be  convinced  of  any 
error;  or  if,  when  convinced,  he  be  too  cowardly  to  own  it. 

4.  The  faults  of  an  advocate  respecting  his  opponent  may 
be,  in  like  manner,  conceived  from  his  good  qualities  already 
mentioned.  Instead  of  emulation  he  may  shew  envy ;  he  may 
be  unkind,  or  disrespectful;  or,  on  the  contrary,  he  may  affect 
a  too  fawning  and  effeminate  politeness.  When  an  opposition 
of  opinions  seems  unavoidable,  he  may  be  too  petulant  or 
impatient ;  and,  in  his  attacks,  which  he  deems  necessary, 
he  may  make  use  of  unfair  methods,  answering  to  poisoned 
weapons  in  war. 

Though  these  faults  must  be  the  opposites  to  the  good  405 
qualities,  yet  I  look  upon  the  mention  of  them  as  far  from  use 
less  ;  the  descriptions  of  the  good  and  the  bad  qualities  throw 
ing  light  upon  each  other.  Our  enumeration  of  qualities  does 
not  pretend  to  be  complete,  but  is  only  such  as  to  open  the 
subject  before  us,  and  put  the  attentive  into  a  train  of  thinking. 


II.  ii.  5,  6\]  QUALITIES    OF  A  CONTROVERSIALIST.  289 

I.  5.  The  qualities  of  the  judge,  good  and  bad,  may  be  more 
briefly  described ;  his  character  being  more  even  and  uniform 
than  that  of  the  advocate.  He  should  be  more  knowing  than 
the  advocates ;  so,  at  least,  as  to  have  no  new  elements  to 
learn.  He  should  be  superior  to  them,  (or  be  made  so), 
by  age,  rank,  or  other  things.  He  should  have  a  greatness 
of  mind  which  would  make  him  disdain  all  partiality1  and  nar 
row  views.  He  should  be  capable  of  making  the  nicest  dis 
tinctions,  as  very  few  ingenious  arguments  can  be  solved 
without  them.  As  he  has  to  judge  from  the  whole  of  what 
he  hears,  a  strong  and  nice  retention  must  be  requisite,  and 
a  power  of  throwing  out  superfluous  matter,  and  setting  the 
forcible  parts  in  direct  opposition  to  each  other.  Nor  is  it  any 
trifling  talent  to  make  that  which  has  been  urged  in  pompous 
and  inflated  language,  easy  and  familiar,  clear  and  popular. 

It  may  be  doubted  how  far  ornament  and  refined  wit, 
attic  salt,  should  be  reckoned  a  quality  of  a  judge.  If  all 
people  loved  truth  heartily,  and  were  capable  of  understanding 
and  relishing  nice  distinctions,  it  would  not  be  necessary ;  but 
a  love  of  truth  does  not  sufficiently  animate  the  generality,  and 
406  nice  distinctions  often  give  disgust,  by  wearing  an  appearance 
of  sophistry  and  evasion  ;  therefore,  it  were  rather  upon  the 
whole  desirable,  that  the  judge  should  have  something  lively  and 
entertaining  in  his  manner.  His  wit,  or  fancy,  should  be  of 
a  lofty,  polished,  refined  nature,  never  condescending  to  mean 
ness  or  vulgar  buffoonery.  It  should  be  a  wit  seeming  to  dis 
dain  wit. 

The  faults  into  which  a  judge  is  most  likely  to  run,  not 
to  speak  of  any  so  plain  as  ignorance,  confusion,  inattention, 
insensibility  to  truth,  are,  interfering  with  the  advocates,  or 
becoming  in  some  degree  an  advocate  himself;  connecting 
opinions  with  his  own  person,  or  making  them,  in  some  sort, 
his  own  ;  using  a  multitude  of  words,  in  order  to  shew  him 
self  fluent,  without  a  view  to  new  arrangement,  shortening, 
familiarizing.  According  to  what  has  been  said,  we  may  add, 
that  it  is  a  fault  of  a  judge  of  controversy  to  be  dull. 

6.  It  follows  easily,  from  a  review  of  the  qualities  of  ad 
vocate  and  judge,  now  enumerated,  that  the  best  advocate  would 
be  the  worst  judge,  and  the  best  judge  the  worst  advocate. 
But  we  will  not  again  compare  their  qualities.  The  point 

1  The  professors  at  Helmstadt  used  to   j  was  a  great  moderator.    Mosheim,  vol. 
take  an  oath  to  be  of  no  party.    Calixtus   |  n.  quarto,  p.  4M. 

VOL.  I.  19 


290  QUALITIES    OF  A  CONTROVERSIALIST.        [II.  ii.  7-9- 

will   be   sufficiently  clear  from   suggesting,    that,   in   general,   I. 
parents  would  be  the  best  possible  advocates  for  their  children, 
and  the  least  able  to  judge  in  any  causes  relating  to  them. 

7-  So  far  the  qualities  of  controversialists  have  been  taken 
from  the  nature  of  the  thing — from  suppositions  of  theory ; 
and  the  observations  made  upon  them  have  been  such  as  might 
suit  any  time  or  place.  We  shall  now  find  it  worth  our 
while  to  speak  of  them,  more  with  a  view  to  fact;  but,  as 
the  chief  purpose  of  doing  so  must  be,  to  see  what  regulations 
ought  to  be  made  in  controversy,  we  need  not  dwell  on  any 
good  qualities  which  are  at  present  observable  in  controver 
sialists,  but  may  confine  ourselves  to  those  faults  which  seem  40 
to  require  a  reformation. 

8.  All  the  faults  which  are  observable  in  our  own  times 
in  the  conducting  of  controversy,  seem  as  if  they  might  ori 
ginate  from  our  wrong  principles  in  undertaking  it ;   from  our 
making   it   an    hostile    contention   amongst  different  sects  for 
superiority,  instead  of  an  amicable  contention  amongst  brethren 
for   the   clearing  up  of  truth.       Or,  if   some   of  these   faults 
seem  as  if  they   might   subsist,  even  in  amicable  controversy, 
yet  they   would  in   that  subsist  in  a  less   degree,  and  would 
be  much  more  easily  rectified.      More  particularly,  the  faults, 
which  principally   strike  us  at  present,  may  be  divided   into 
such  as  the  controversialist  has  belonging  to  himself,  or  such 
as   he  has  towards  his  adversary.      Of  the  former   sort,   are, 
i.  Various  ways  of  missing  the  question,      ii.  Various  modes 
of  presumption,  or  want  of  diffidence  ;  or,  what  comes  to  the 
same    thing,    of   carelessness   about   falling    into    error.     The 
faults  of  the  latter  sort  may  be  considered  as  different  spe 
cies  of  hostilities,  where  no  hostility  ought  to  take  place. 

9.  i  We  find  amongst  disputants  various  ways  of   miss 
ing  the  question.      In  order  that  a  controversy  should  subsist, 
there    must  be  supposed  some  proposition  laid  down,   which 
one  side  takes  in  the  affirmative  sense,  the  other  in  the  nega 
tive  :   I   apprehend  all  questions  might  be  put  into  this  form. 
Now,  if  we  have  no  ideas  to  such  proposition,  we  cannot  affirm 
or  deny  any  thing  about  it ;   and  therefore  the  whole  dispute, 
in    such  case,  may  be  looked  upon  as    missing   the   question. 
Disputes    of  this   nature  are  merely  verbal;    that  is,  contro 
versies   about  unintelligible  doctrines  are  controversies  about 
nothing.     Notwithstanding  this,  there  may  be  some  intelligible 
disputes   relating   to    unintelligible    doctrines,  as,  concerning  408 


II.  ii.  10.]          QUALITIES    OF  A  CONTROVERSIALIST.  291 

I.  expressions  of  Scripture  on  which  such  doctrines  are  founded ; 
but  the  fault  of  which  we  are  speaking  has  place  at  any  time 
when  men  speak  without  ideas,  as  if  they  had  distinct  concep 
tions.  Sometimes  the  use  of  learned  terms  is  apt  to  make 
men  deceive  themselves,  and  take  for  granted  that  they  have 
ideas,  because  they  use  high-sounding  words. 

Sometimes  disputants  miss  the  question,  by  supposing  a 
question  to  be  more  extensive  than  it  is ;  or  by  getting  beyond 
the  limits  of  that  which  is  properly  in  agitation : — as  when,  in 
disputing  about  the  use  of  ceremonies  or  habits  in  religious 
worship,  they  urge  arguments  as  if  the  question  was  about  the 
use  of  religious  worship.  To  this  there  may  be  an  opposite 
fault,  which  must  consist  in  arguing  as  if  the  subject  were 
less  extensive  than  it  really  is ;  as  if,  for  instance,  the  ques 
tion  was  only  about  the  rights  of  a  single  individual,  when  it 
really  affects  every  individual ;  or  the  whole  Church  of  Christ. 

Another  way  of  missing  the  question  is,  urging  that  such 
an  opinion  is  held  by  some  person  generally  disapproved,  instead 
of  proving  that  the  opinion  is  false.  '  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
Spinoza,  Toland,  Tindal,  Hobbes,  Hume ;'  so  say  disputants, 
insinuating  thereby  that  it  is  to  be  reprobated :  as  if  there 
was  any  of  these  writers  who  had  not  written  many  truths. 
The  question  is  not,  whether  Mr.  Hume  wrote  such  an  opinion, 
but  whether  it  is  true. 

10.  ii.  We  find  amongst  controversialists  various  modes 
of  presumptuous  confidence,  or  taking  opinions  for  granted, 
or  want  of  carefulness  about  running  into  falsehood  and  error. 

They  will  sometimes  presume  so  much  upon  the  truth  of 
their  own  tenets,  that  they  will  defend  them  by  arguments 
409  which  they  themselves  think  inconclusive.  The  danger  of 
this  is  well  described  by  Dr.  Powell1.  Something  of  this  sort, 
we  formerly  said2,  was  once  allowed  amongst  Christians,  and 
called  disputing  /car  otKoz/o/cuaiA 

It  is  frequently  seen  that  men  use  arrogant  language,  and 
declamatory  expressions,  setting  aside  all  doubt  that  the  truth 
is  on  their  side.  But  why  may  not  their  adversaries  do  the 
same  ?  and,  if  they  do,  one  arrogant  and  declamatory  expres 
sion  is  as  good  as  another ;  and  they  all  together  are  so  many 
hinderances  to  the  settlement  of  the  truth.  It  is  sometimes 
found  that  people  even  commend  declamatory  expressions  on 
their  own  side,  as  if  what  they  hold  for  truth  must  be  ac- 

1  P.  305.  2  Book  I.  Chap.  xii.  sect.  15.  3  Mosheim,  Cent.  iii.  2,  3,  10. 

19 2 


292  QUALITIES    OF  A  CONTROVERSIALIST.          [II.  ii.  11. 

knowledged  truth.  But  this  is  not  of  the  nature  of  regular  I. 
contention,  even  amongst  enemies.  Though  every  one  reckons 
himself  in  the  right,  and  his  enemy  in  the  wrong,  when  he 
declares  war,  yet  in  carrying  on  war,  one  party  is  to  be 
esteemed  as  much  in  the  right  as  another :  no  one  party  must 
use  any  mode  of  attack  which  he  will  not  allow  to  be  used 
against  himself.  The  rules  for  carrying  on  contention  do  not 
at  all  intermeddle  with  the  question,  who  was  right  in  begin 
ning  contention.  Bigotry  is  being  so  blindly  attached  to  one 
religious  persuasion  as  to  think  that  it  is  to  be  enforced  by  all 
methods  whatsoever  :  by  methods  which  would  be  thought  very 
oppressive  if  made  use  of  to  enforce  some  different  persuasions. 
Want  of  diffidence  makes  disputants  forget  that  we  may 
have  a  probability  to  act  upon,  and  yet  be  very  far  from 
certainty  :  whatever  is  only  probable  may  be  false1,  and  yet 
superior  probability,  however -trifling  the  superiority,  is  suffi 
cient  to  determine  our  action.  Though  men,  therefore,  may 
have  evidence  enough  to  act  upon,  they  may  not  have  enough  110 
to  entitle  them  to  insult  others,  or  triumph  over  them,  as 
being  certainly  in  error.  Indeed,  those  who  are  clearly  con 
vinced  seldom  insult :  satisfied  with  themselves,  they  are  kind 
and  candid  to  others. 

.11.  The  second  sort  of  faults  observable  in  controversies 
is,  that  by  which  a  man  does  something  wrong  towards  his 
adversary.  The  faults  of  this  class  have  here  been  said2  to 
be  all  different  species  of  hostilities.  All  hostilities  are  faults, 
where  no  hostility  is  necessary. 

We  have  already  mentioned  the  folly  of  using  expressions 
on  one  side  which  may  be  used  with  equal  right  on  the  other, 
as  not  forwarding,  but  rather  hindering  the  settlement  of  truth; 
and  what  was  said  may  serve  to  shew  the  fault  of  using  any 
unfair  methods  of  attack ;  of  doing  any  thing  against  an 
adversary,  and  blaming  him  for  doing  the  same  in  return.  Se 
veral  hostilities  being  of  this  kind,  this  idea  may  accompany 
the  mention  of  them. 

It  is  a  common  fault  of  controversy  to  run  into  personal 
reflexions — to  endeavour  to  throw  disgrace  upon  a  cause  by 
disgracing  those  who  defend  it.  If  the  person  of  an  adver 
sary  can  be  made  contemptible,  or  odious,  it  is  reckoned  a 
great  thing;  and  therefore  all  sinister  motives  are  ascribed 
to  him.  Sometimes  the  reviling  is  made  to  extend  to  his 

1  Book  I.  xv.  15.  2  Sect.  8. 


II.  ii.  12.]  QUALITIES    OF  A  CONTROVERSIALIST.  293 

I.  profession,  his  family,  his  country,  as  if  defects  in  these,  or 
in  himself,  could  make  his  arguments  defective.  Sometimes, 
in  religious  controversy,  the  solemn  duty  of  prayer  has  been 
made  the  vehicle  of  detraction.  In  other  things,  the  same 
persons  would  not  run  into  the  same  absurdities  :  they  would 
11  listen  to  arguments,  abstracted  from  all  personal  considerations, 
if  even  a  murderer  was  to  urge  any  in  his  own  defence. 

It  is  also  a  common  fault,  to  charge  upon  an  adversary 
consequences  drawn  from  his  doctrines,  as  if  he  professed 
those  consequences  as  much  as  the  doctrines  from  which  they 
were  drawn.  Yet  it  may  be  easily  understood,  that,  if  I  do 
not  acknowledge  a  deduced  doctrine  or  maxim  to  be  true, 
whatever  evil  there  may  be  in  it,  I  am  free  from  that  evil 
at  present.  Perhaps,  sometimes,  the  deduced  doctrine  may 
be  of  a  dangerous  sort,  so  that  a  person  might  wish  to  hold 
it  secretly;  still,  till  I  shew  some  marks  of  holding  it,  I 
cannot  be  justly  charged  as  its  favourer. 

It  is  a  common  fault  in  controversy,  to  throw  odium  upon 
an  argument,  by  referring  it  to  an  odious  party.  'This  is 
rank  popery;'  or,  'it  is  reviving  the  scepticism  of  Pyrrho, 
the  fatality  of  the  Stoics  J  &c as  if  no  man  thought  for  him 
self,  independently  of  party. 

This  approaches  near  to  what  was  before  mentioned,  as 
a  mode  of  missing  the  question  in  debate ;  and  it  may  be 
observed  of  the  other  faults  towards  the  adversary,  that  there 
is  inaccuracy  in  them,  as  well  as  malevolence. 

By  the  combination  of  these  faults  we  find  controversy, 
especially  in  books,  very  different  from  what  it  ought  to  be: 
a  kind  of  illiberal  scolding  and  fighting,  a  mutual  buffeting 
of  reputations  ;  sometimes  a  mere  effusion  of  personal  enmity  ; 
sometimes  a  wretched  disingenuous  trial  of  skill — a  literary 
prize-fighting,  exhibited  to  certain  spectators,  who  afford  it 
their  attention  :  the  prize,  perhaps,  a  few  followers,  or  a 
little  applause;  or,  possibly,  the  patronage  of  some  powerful 
bigots,  who  have  rewards  to  bestow. 

412  12.  According  to  our  idea  of  controversy,  there  should 
be  three  parties  concerned,  two  advocates  and  a  judge:  but, 
in  written  controversy,  we  seldom  see  more  than  tiuo  parties ; 
these  are  to  be  called  advocates;  but  each  of  these  takes  upon 
him  something  of  the  character  of  the  judge ;  and,  of  course, 
their  duties  will  vary  from  those  of  the  perfect  advocate.  Each 
must  be  less  the  advocate  than  a  perfect  advocate,  and  less 


294  QUALITIES    OF  A  CONTROVERSIALIST.  [II.  11.  13. 

the  judge  than  a  perfect  judge.  Each  should  endeavour  to  I. 
assume  the  qualities  of  an  advocate  when  he  is  doing  the 
business  of  an  advocate,  and  the  qualities  of  a  judge  when 
he  is  performing  the  part  of  a  judge.  An  attempt  to  do  this 
would  lessen  prej  udice,  partiality,  passion  ;  and  would  generate 
an  increase  of  candour,  benevolence,  and  reason :  would  make 
the  parties  more  desirous  of  coming  to  an  agreement ;  and, 
for  that  purpose,  more  earnest  to  discover  the  real  truth1. 

13.  It  may  be  proper  to  distinguish  here  between  some 
of  the  ways  of  reasoning  which  have  been  reprobated  in  this 
chapter,  and  some  which  bear  some  resemblance  to  them,  and 
are  allowed  by  logicians. 

We  have  here  proscribed  all  personal  reflections  in  con 
troversy  :  is  that  proscribing  all  use  of  the  argumentum  ad 
hominem?  no;  that  is  a  way  of  arguing  which  may  be  very  use 
ful  for  certain  ends,  and  in  its  proper  place2.  To  argue  in  this 
way  is,  according  to  Mr.  Locke,  "  to  press  a  man  with  conse 
quences  drawn  from  his  own  principles  or  concessions."  And, 
though  Mr.  Locke  speaks  of  its  inferiority  to  the  argumentuni 
adjudicium,  he  owns  it  may  "dispose"  a  man  "  for  the  reception  413 
of  truth;"  which  seems  a  very  important  matter.  Those  who 
are  disposed  for  the  reception  of  truth  seldom  fail  to  embrace 
it.  When  our  Saviour  had  only  to  overcome  the  prejudices 
of  the  Jews,  it  was  surely  right  reasoning  to  convince  them, 
that,  in  rejecting  him  as  their  Messiah,  they  acted  an  incon 
sistent  part.  And  it  is  now  right  to  shew  the  same  (as  Bishop 
Butler  does)  to  those  who  object  to  Christianity  what  they 
allow  in  natural  religion.  "Out  of  thine  own  mouth  will 
I  judge  thee3,"  is  a  very  fair  method  in  practice,  though  not 
so  well  adapted  to  speculation  ;  but  it  may  often  remove  all 
difficulties  which  actually  lie  in  the  way  at  any  particular 
time.  But  personal  reflections  are  not  conclusive  in  any 
circumstances  whatever :  they  are  so  many  meteors,  which 
only  dazzle  and  mislead.  An  argumentum  ad  hominem  may 
sometimes  imply  a  personal  reflection  accidentally  ;  as,  when 
it  is  urged,  'you,  who  are  a  papist,  superstitious,  and  intole 
rant,  have  no  right  to  speak  in  such  a  manner.'1 

Sometimes,  perhaps,  men  may  be  induced  to  use  the 
method  of  charging  consequences,  by  its  likeness  to  what  is 


1  Truth,  or  justice ;  either  word  might 
do.  All  virtues  have  been  considered  as 
species  of  truth,  and  also  as  reducible 


to  jn.stice. 

2  See  before,  I.  xvii.  19. 
'J  Luke  xix,  22. 


II.  ii.  14.]  QUALITIES    OF  A  CONTROVE11SIALIST. 


295 


I.  called  in  logic  reductio  ab  absurdum ;  but  that  is  as  strict  a 
demonstration  as  any  whatever.  If  you  lay  down  a  proposition, 
and  from  it  deduce  consequences,  till  you  come  to  any  pro 
position  which  is  undeniably  false,  then  it  follows,  that  the 
proposition  with  which  you  set  out  was  false,  and  its  con 
tradictory  true.  But  the  consequences  charged  in  the  kind 
of  controversy  which  we  are  speaking  of,  are  no  consequences 
in  the  nature  of  things  :  they  are  only  practical  consequences, 
presumed  to  follow  ;  such  as  need  not  follow,  and,  in  fact, 
generally  do  not. 

414  It  might  be  considered,  how  far  the  arguments  of  superior 
to  inferior  beings  are  necessarily  of  the  nature  of  the  argumen- 
tum  ad  hominem.     God  cannot   reason  with  us  fully:    "His 
thoughts  are  not  as  our  thoughts."    And  the  same  may  be  ap 
plied,  in  a  less  degree,   when   wise  men    reason   with   the  ig 
norant.     Yet,  reasoning  with  men  according  to  their  concep 
tions,  answering  fools  according  to  their  folly,  is  not  exactly 
the  same  thing  as  reasoning  with  them  from  their  concessions ; 
or  requiring  them   to  act  on  the  same  principles  in  all  cases. 
Yet  it  will  often  happen  that,  when  you   are  obliged  to  con 
descend  to  men's  conceptions,  you  can  only  argue  with  them 
on  their  own  principles.     As  far  as  higher  principles  are  ne 
cessary,  they  must  be  left  unconvinced. 

14.  The  last  thing  to  be  taken  notice  of  in  this  chapter 
is,  the  scriptural  idea  of  controversy. 

Misapplication  of  Scripture  has  done  much  harm  in  con 
troversy  ;  and  there  is  some  excuse  for  it.  In  the  Old  Testa 
ment  we  find  nations  exterminated  as  being  idolaters;  idolatrous 
priests  cut  off;  curses  denounced.  In  the  New,  we  meet  with 
instances  of  such  imperfect  controversial  reasoning  as  the 
argumentum  ad  hominem;  and  several  seemingly  harsh  Ex 
pressions. 

To  give  particular  answers  here  to  all  the  arguments 
which  might  be  drawn  from  this  source,  would  carry  us 
too  far.  Something  has  been  said,  in  speaking  of  the  Chris- 

415  tian    '''Fathers;    something   will   occur    on    the    18th  and   33d 
Articles  of  the   Church  of  England.    At  present  we  must  con- 


4  Matt,  xxiii.  27,  whited  sepulchres. 
Luke  xiii.  32,  go  tell  that  fox.  Acts 
xxiii.  3,  whited  wall,  (but  compare  xxiii. 
5).  Gal.  v.  12,  cut  off  that  trouble  you. 
Phil.  iii.  2,  Dogs,  concision.  Tit.  iii. 
10,  an  heretic,  &c.  reject.  2  Pet.  ii.  1, 


damnable  heresies.  Jude  8,  and  10,  filthy 
dreamers — as  brute  beasts.  Lahbc.  makes 
these  texts,  &c.  his  apology  for  using 
harsh  expressions  in  controversy  about 
Pope  Joan.  Script.  Eccl.  vol.  i.  p.  1004. 
5  I.  xii.  14. 


29G  QUALITIES    OF    A    CONTROVERSIALIST.         [Il.ii.   11. 


tent  ourselves  with  general  answers.  Of  the  tir^unictihiin  ad  I. 
kominem  I  need  say  nothing  more.  Many  of  the  clilKculties 
taken  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  only  parts  of  Divine 
government,  in  separating  the  Jews  from  their  idolatrous 
neighbours.  In  which  we  are  to  consider  that  the  established 
morality  of  the  times  must  be  supposed  to  be  permitted.  God 
had  probably  no  more  plan  of  revealing  moral  than  natural 
philosophy.  Many  of  those  in  the  New  Testament  are  in 
stances  of  accommodation,  allusion,  and  the  kind  of  quotation 
explained,  Book  i.  Chap.  xvii.  sect.  13.  Some  may  be  solved 
by  custom,  and  Homer's1  oivofiapes,  KVVOS  o^aT  e\tw  might 
assist  in  the  solution,  as  well  as  expressions  in  ancient  English 
writers.  Some  harshnesses  are  descriptions  of  sects,  some  im 
ply  rules  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  Some  would  go  oft*  on 
examination  —  as  Jude,  ver.  10. 

The  removal  of  these  difficulties  will  be  illustrated  by  the 
texts,  where  no  such  circumstances  arose.  These  being  plain 
texts,  for  the  most  part,  she\v  the  true  scriptural  meaning. 

2  Cor.  ii.  6',  7-  "  Ye  ought  rather  to  forgive  him,  and 
comfort  him."  Here  the  occasion  should  be  clearly  seen. 
The  fornieator-  had  been  censured  by  the  majority.  St.  Paul 
is  very  delicate  in  avoiding  personalities. 

Gal.  vi.  1.  Restore,  "in  the  spirit  of  meekness." 

Ephes.  iv.  i.~>.  4»  Speaking  the  truth  in  love." 

1  Tim.  iii.   2.  A  bishop  must  be  &&ucruroff)   have  all  the 
temper  &c.  of  a  good  teacher. 

2  Tim.  ii.  24-,  25,  is  strong  and  full.      For  the  occasion,  see 
Michaelis'  Introductory  Lectures,  p.  :>o\'>,  quarto. 

Tit.   iii.  2,  shews  what   an   ecclesiastic   should   teach   men    n 
to   be. 

Jude,  ver.  o,  even  that  is  against  "railing  accusation." 
One  might  argue,  moreover,  from  the  New  Testament 
putting  men  upon  a  footing  of  brethren.  And,  lastly,  one 
miglit  urge,  that  the  exhortations  to  forbearance  being  plain, 
the  more  difficult  parts  of  Scripture  arc  not  rightly  inter 
preted,  if  they  are  not  made  consistent  with  them,  allowance 
being  made  for  different  occasions. 

1   II.  lib.  i.  v.  "2-2J.  -  See  Locke  on  the  place. 


II.  iii.  1,2.] 


aiDICULK. 


297 


I. 

417 


418 


CHArTER    III. 

OF     INTRODUCING    RIDICULE    INTO    CONTJIOVEKSY  I    AND   FIRST, 
OF    IlIDICULE    IN    GENERAL. 

1.  HAVING  seen  the  nature  of  controversy,  and  the  quali 
fications  of  controversialists,   I   might  now  proceed  to  deduce 
rules,  and  give  instances  of  the  need    there  is  of  them  ;    but 
a  subject  of  magnitude,  the  subject  of  ridicule,  stands  in  my 
way.     To   pass  it  by   would   be  to  omit  what  has  sometimes 
been  made  a  considerable  ingredient  in  controversy :    to  treat 
it  fully  would  require  a  separate  work,  especially  as   I  know 
not  any  author*  who  has  written  upon  it  in  a  manner  perfectly 
satisfactory.     I   must  say  something  of  it,  and  be  as   concise 
as  possible. 

Ridicule  may  be  used  cither  as  a  friend  or  enemy  to  true 
religion.  There  arc  some  extravagances  in  the  practice  of 
piety  for  which  it  has  been  thought  the  only  remedy4.  That 
it  can  be  an  enemy5,  need  scarce  be  mentioned.  As  a  friend, 
we  should  secure  it,  and  cultivate  it,  and  also  learn  how  to 
employ  it  to  advantage ;  as  an  enemy,  we  should  learn  how 
to  guard  against  it. 

2.  The   ridiculous    takes   in    whatever    excites    laughter, 
or   the    inward  feelings    usually    accompanied    with    laughter. 
Now  this   is  found  to  be,   most  frequently,  some  trifling  ab 
surdity,    inconsistency,    turpitude,    or    something    of  like   na 
ture.     The  word   ridicule,  like  other  words,  is  not  used  witli 
great  precision   and  steadiness  ;   sometimes  expressing  what  is 
seen  in  the  objects,  sometimes  what  is  felt  in  the  mind;    but 
we  may  leave  the  senses  of  it  to  custom.      It  is  a  subject  not 
yet  understood ;   insomuch,  that  the  arguments  for  and  against 
it  seldom  seem  directly  opposed  to  each  other.      The  way  to 
improve  it  must  be,  to  make  a  great  number  of  experiments 
with   care,   and  class  them   with  nicety ;    with   as  much  as   we 
should    use  in  experiments  relating  to  magnetism,    fixed  air, 
or   electricity6.      Our   error    is    thinking   the    subject    trifling. 


:!  Hartley,  in  his  Essay  on  Man,  has 
done  much  on  this  subject.  Bp.  War- 
burton  has  treated  it,  with  a  view  to  reli 
gion,  in  his  Dedication  to  the  Free 
thinkers,  and  in  his  Preface  to  his  Book 
on  the  Holy  Spirit. 

4  See  Provincial  Letters,  by  Pascal: 


Molicre's   Tartuffe:    Swift's    Talc  of  a 

Tub:  Foote's  Minor;  &c and  we  might 

look  back  to  Lucian. 

:>  See  Iceland's  View,   &c.  vol.  i.  pp. 

i;i>,  <;:;.  4th  edit. 

H  Cic.  de  Or.  1.  2.  might  furnish  ex 
periments.    Sect.  54 — 71- 


298  RIDICULE.  [ILiii.  3, 4. 

If  we  studied  and  improved  it  regularly,  we  should  probably    I. 
find  it  important,  both  to  truth  and  virtue. 

3.  Let  us  begin   with  experiments  on  infants.     Some  of 
these  we  may  find  mentioned  in  Dr.  Hartley's  Essay  on  Man  ; 
and  we  may  improve   upon  them  by  new  trials  and  observa 
tions  of  our  own.      Not  that  infants  have  ideas  of  absurdity, 
turpitude,    &c.   but    their   feelings    are   undisguised,  and    not 
complicated.      They   do  not   laugh  aloud  for    some  months1. 
They  are  made  to  laugh  by  the  gentle  touching  of  certain 
nerves  (or  of  the  skin  which  immediately  covers  them)  in  the 
more   sensible  parts   of  the  body.      The  sensation   seems  be 
tween  pleasure  and  pain,   or  to  be  pleasure   nearly  bordering 
upon   pain. 

Infants  are  made  to  laugh  sometimes  without  contact,  by 
a  certain  degree  of  surprise;  which  seems  again  to  give  a 
certain  degree  of  motion  and  vibration  to  the  nerves,  such  419 
as  will  be  in  some  small  degree  painful.  Increase  the  degree 
of  surprise,  or  the  shock,  you  make  the  infant  cry;  which  it 
will  do  with  the  same  shock,  if  the  irritability  of  the  nerves 
is  increased  by  sickness  or  weakness.  In  this  experiment,  we 
observe  that  the  shock  or  surprise  does  not  produce  the  laugh 
ter  instantaneously ;  but  that  the  laughter  ensues  a  moment 
after,  upon  the  removal  of  the  shock,  or  of  the  fear  which  the 
attack  occasions. 

These  experiments  are  in  a  rude  state  at  present. 

4.  So  long   as  our  experiments  are  confined  to  the  body, 
we   can   speak   a  tolerably   plain  language;  but,    in  order  to 
deduce   any    thing  from   bodily    phenomena,    with    regard    to 
mens  laughing  at  absurdity ',   Sec.,  we  must  suppose  that  the 
nerves   may  be  made  to   vibrate  in  the  same  manner  by  the 
stroke  or  shock  which  absurdity ,  &c.  make  on  the  brain,  the 
source   of  the  nerves,   as  by   bodily   contact,   or  by   surprise. 
This  supposition  seems  so  probable  that  we  may  admit  it,  till 
something  arises  in  our  experiments  to  contradict  or  disparage 
it.     Besides,  as  ridicule  belongs  to  the  mind,  we  are  obliged 
to  speak  by  comparison,   or  metaphor.     Our  terms  must   be 
borrowed  from  sensible  objects ;  and  transferred,  according  to 
some  confused  notions  of  resemblance  between  acts  of  mind  and 
acts  of  body.    Thus,  the  mind  is  said  to  reflect,  or  bend  back, 
to  weigh,  to  be  elated  or  dejected,  to  have  precepts  inculcated 
or  trod  in   upon   it,  and  so  on.     We,  in  like  manner,  speak 

1  Hartley,  vol.  i.  p.  437. 


II.  iii.  4.]  RIDICULE.  299 

I.   of  trains  of  thought,  and  of  the  tide  of  affections,  and  flow 
of  sentiment. 

With  the  help  of  such  terms  as  these  we  may  express 
a  sort  of  an  hypothesis  concerning  ridicule.  Let  it  not  be 
taken  as  any  thing  distinctly  conceived,  and  it  may  be  of 
some  use.  A  sense  of  ridicule,  or  laughter,  arises,  when  two 

420  currents  of  feelings  meet  suddenly  in  the  mind,  striking  the 
moral  sense,  and  by  their  concourse  make  an  effect   on   the 
mind  (and  therefore  on  the  nerves)  resembling  the  confusion 
and  ebullition  caused  by  the  meeting  of  two  real  currents  ;  and 
still  more  of  two  currents  of  fluids,  which  effervesce  and  repel 
each  other.      Out  of  this  hypothesis  we  must  never  leave  the 
moral  sense :  there  must  be  some  shock  or  surprise  upon  that ; 
and  such  shock  must  be  of  a  limited  strength.     If  an  oppo 
sition  of  two  trains  of  thought  is,  in  any  case,  much  expected, 
then  a   sudden,  unexpected  coincidence  may   give  the  moral 
shock,   and  excite  laughter. 

The  man  of  the  world,  and  the  man  of  strict  science,  may 
here  cry  out  jointly,  what  mere  hypothesis!  It  pretends  to 
be  nothing  more.  But  the  language  of  hypothesis  is  often 
convenient;  and  when  the  real  nature  of  it  is  understood,  it 
does  not  lead  into  error.  I  had  rather  have  men  talk  to  me 
of  attraction  than  not,  so  long  as  they  are  aware  of  its  being 
only  the  name  of  the  unknown  cause  of  known  effects ;  and 
the  same  of  phlogiston,  and  electric  matter ;  nay,  I  am  no 
enemy  to  animal  spirits,  so  long  as  they  are  not  spoken  of 
as  if  they  were  understood.  Framing  an  hypothesis  is  saying, 
such  things  happen,  AS  IF  they  had  such  a  cause;  which  is 
the  best  way  of  arranging  them  for  the  mind  to  see  them 
clearly,  and  proceed  upon  them  easily  and  freely.  Caution 
indeed  is  always  needful,  lest  the  AS  IF  should  get  changed 
into  an  affirmation  of  fact.  Experiments  in  Optics  proceed  as 
if  small  particles  of  light  came  from  the  heavenly  luminaries 
in  right  lines,  with  very  great  velocity:  do  we  know  more 
of  the  fact?  As  to  our  hypothesis  about  ridicule,  it  certainly 
wants  much  clearing  up.  I  should  be  willing  to  abandon 

421  it;    and,  indeed,  no  one  could  be  tenacious  of  an  hypothesis, 
who  knew  what   an  hypothesis  was.     Find   another  supposed 
cause  of  the   phenomena    of   laughter    which    shall    combine 
more  facts  or  experiments,  and  you  are  perfectly  at  liberty  to 
adopt  it. 

But,  at  present,  let  us  see  more  of  our  two  currents.     If 


300  RIDICULE.  [II.  iii.  5, 6. 

I  respect  a  man,  I  feel  something  answering  to  such  an  expres-  I. 
sion  as  this — 4  my  sentiments  of  respect  flow  on  account  of 
such  a  man;1  on  the  sight  or  mention  of  this  man  my  sen 
timents  are  put  in  motion.  And  the  same  is  true  of  contempt. 
Now  it  might  happen,  that,  on  some  accounts,  I  might  feel 
respect  for  a  man,  and,  on  others,  contempt ;  at  least,  in  par 
ticular  circumstances.  His  general  character  might  be  respect 
able,  his  dress  might  have  something  mean  in  it,  or  contempt 
ible  ;  if  these  two  sentiments  were  suddenly  set  in  motion 
at  the  same  time,  and  gave  a  shock  not  very  strong,  to  that 
faculty  of  mine  which  judges  of  rectitude,  propriety,  con 
sistency,  &c.  I  should  be  made  to  laugh1. 

5.  It  will   generally  happen,  that    what    excites  laughter 
will  be  something  absurd  or  improper,  in  a  degree ;  but  our 
emotion,   being    sudden,    will    depend    upon    those  notions   of 
propriety  which  are  most  familiar  to   us,  and  habitual.      Now 

we  may,  by  custom  and  fashion,  think  many  things  indeco-  422 
rous,  which  will  not  appear  so  when  we  have  time  to  reflect. 
And  the  same  is  true  of  other  notions  and  sentiments,  even 
respect  itself;  we  may  feel  respect  at  first  sight,  which  goes 
off  on  farther  acquaintance.  Hence,  we  should  always  be 
aware,  that  a  thing  may  make  us  laugh  and  yet  not  be  ab 
surd,  nor  appear  so,  when  we  come  to  consider  ita.  An 
apparent  absurdity  will  excite  laughter  for  a  moment  ;  but 
if  it  does  not  appear  to  our  reason  to  be  real,  the  ridiculous 
effect  will  go  off.  We  ought  not,  therefore,  to  trust  to  our 
feeling  of  the  ridiculous,  where  any  thing  material  is  at  stake, 
but  give  it  a  thorough  examination.  This  is  important. 

6.  By  way  of  confirming  what  has  been  said,  we  may  apply 
it  to  account  for  a  few  appearances3.      We   may  conceive  the 


1  See  Mr.  Cole's  Latin  Dissertation, 
which  got  an  Academical  prize  in  1JUO, 
p.  8,  and  16. 

II.  Fielding  makes  his  Philosopher 
S(j>i(ire  ridiculous,  by  putting  on  him 
the  woman's  night-cap;  and  exposing 
him  in  a  situation  strongly  contrasted 
with  philosophy. 

We  feel  both  respect  and  contempt,  in 
reading  Swift's  Tale  of  a  Tub  ;  but  they 
are  not  strong  sentiments  there ;  neither 
is  their  effervescence  strong. 

By  the  way,  as  Peter,  Martin,  and  Jack, 
represent  three  leading  sects,  so  I  con 
ceive  Fielding  to  mean  that  Thwackum 


shall  represent  religion,  when  careless 
about  virtue ;  and  Square,  virtue  when 
too  negligent  of  religion. 


3  S 


Hartley,  vol.  i.  p.  441. 

uppose  a  young  courtier  of  Queen 
Anne's  court  to  come  in  amongst  us, 
ready  dressed,  in  his  enormous  peruke, 
large  cuff's,  &c.  for  court,  and  to  act  the 
gay,  easy,  chatty  courtier,  though  unaf 
fectedly.  Or,  an  eager  and  absent  phi 
losopher  in  his  night-dress,  to  publish 
his  evpriKa.  Or  John  Moody,  in  the  sim 
plicity  of  his  nature.  The  instance  of 
the  ministers  of  Charles  II.  mimick 
ing  Lord  Chancellor  Clarendon,  might 


II.  iii.  7.]  UIDICULK.  301 

I.  state  of  mind  of  that  man  who  naturally  does  not  laugh  much, 
and  also  of  him  who  laughs  very  readily.  The  former  lias 
extensive  knowledge  of  tilings,  and  their  consequences,  their 

423  uncertainties,  dangers,  perplexities,  &c.:  he  discerns  their  real 
nature ;  and,  besides   that  ridicule  loses  its  effect  and  requires 
to  be  heightened  like  other  poignances,  he  gets  a  general  dis 
trust  of  ludicrous   representations.      The  latter  is,   for    want 
of  reason  and  reflection,  struck  with  trifling  incongruities;  such 
as  are  cleared  away,  as  it  were,  and  solved  by  the  reason  and 
good  sense  of  the  other.     This  latter  approaches  to  that  boyish 
unthinking-ness    which    occasions    such   bursts   of   laughter    at 
theatrical  entertainments,  when  any  thing   of  an  absurdity   or 
incongruity  is  introduced4.      So  just  is   the  observation  made 
in  Ecclesiasticus,  xix.  30  :   A    man's  excessive  laughter   (with 
other  things)  shews  "  what  he  is5."      Also  Chap.  xxi.  20  :    "  A 
fool  lifteth  up  his  voice0  with  laughter,  but  a  wise  man  doth 
scarce   smile   a    little."      Nevertheless,    serious  persons,    when 
they  do  laugh,  laugh  intensely :   the  reason  seems  to  be,  their 
very  strong   sense  of  decency  and  propriety,   and   their  very 
high   respect  for  decorum,  mixed  with   some  degree   of  good 
humour,  which  hinders  them  from  flying  out  into  anger  and 
indignation. 

7-     It    may   be  objected,   that   ridicule  gives  us  pleasure, 

424  and  absurdity  pain,  and  therefore  that  absurdity  cannot  occa 
sion  ridicule.      But  the  pleasure  of  ridicule  is  of  the  pungent 
kind,  like  that  of  taking  snuff,  mustard,   &.C.,   which  gives  a 

be  suitable  here  :  mentioned  in  JRapin,  j  G  Vulgar  people  laugh  at  bodily  dc- 
vol.  ii.  p.  646;  mentioned  also  in  War-  :  formity.  "  My  lord,"  is  a  common  nick- 
burton's  Dedication  to  Freethinkers,  p.  j  name  for  the  hump-backed  :  also  at  deaf- 
xvii.  4to :  and  the  passage  from  Lord  ness;  a  deaf  man  once  said  to  me,  "a 
Shaftesbury,  p.  xii.  4to,  receives  an  an-  mort  of  folk  laugh  at  inc."  Most  men 
s\ver  from  this  paragraph.  In  mimicry,  j  are  inclined  to  laugh  at  wrong  answers 
the  sentiment  excited  by  the  original  j  from  deaf  men,  if  there  is  an  affectation 
effervesces  with  that  excited  by  the  copy,  i  of  seeming  to  hear;  or,  if  the  answer 

I  have  known  the  German  name  for  i  given  makes  a  clashing,  a  contrast  or 

the  Deity,  Gott,  strike  an  Englishman  as  j  coincidence  with  that  which  ought  to 

ridiculous :  would  our  name  strike  a  '<  have  been  given.  Contrasts  are  fre- 

German  as  equally  so  ?  j  quently  made  in  the  mind  by  means  of 

The  King  of  Pegu,  when  he  heard  one  visible  or  audible  object;  but  then 

from  one  Balbi  that  there  was  no  king  that  object  is  opposed  to  some  abstract 

at  Venice,  burst  into  a  lit  of  laughter  so  !  idea  already  formed  in  the  mind  by  habit. 

great,  that  a  coughing  seized  him,  &c.  i  Deformity  is  contrasted  with  the  abstract 


See  Spirit  of  Laws,  111.  2. 


This  is  remarkable  in  a  pantomime 


farce,  during  the  Christmas  holidays. 
5  Hartley,  vol.  i.  p.  43'J. 


idea,  in  the  mind,  of  an  human  shape ; 
or,  perhaps,  of  a  beautiful  and  perfect 
form . 


302 


HIDICULE. 


[II.  iii.  8,9- 


shock,  bordering  upon  pain,  to  the  olfactory  nerves,  and  those   I. 
of  the  palate.      Increase  this  shock,  and  such  pain  ensues  as 
we  try  to  avoid.      In   every    small  pain,  there    seems   to   be 
something  of  pleasure;    every  lesser  evil  seems  to  be  under 
gone  voluntarily,  as  a  species  of  good1. 

It  may  be  also  objected,  that  the  effect  of  ridicule  is 
immediate,  whereas,  according  to  2one  of  our  experiments,  it 
ought  not  to  be  till  after  a  small  interval.  It  seems  possible, 
that  the  pleasure  of  ridicule  may  be  of  that  species  which  Mr. 
Burke  calls  delight ;  it  may  arise  from  the  removal  of  pain  ; 
of  that  pain  which  is  occasioned  by  the  first  shock  upon  the 
nerves.  I  have  seen  some  few  persons  laugh  heartily  after 
a  moments  pause ;  but  that  may  be  a  mere  unaccountable 
custom.  The  best  account  of  the  matter  seems  to  be,  that, 
by  a  great  number  of  instances,  we  get  to  feel  and  expect 
that  the  shock  will  immediately  go  off,  and  then  the  effect  of 
ridicule  upon  our  minds  and  bodies  becomes  instantaneous. 
The  case  may  not  be  the  same  in  children  :  they  may  feel 
fear ;  that  fear  may  soon  go  off,  and  be  followed  by  security, 
or  a  sense  of  safety,  which,  opposed  to  the  fear,  may  occasion 
the  laughter ;  yet  the  impression  of  the  fear  may  remain  for 
a  short  time :  they  have  not  yet  learned  to  laugh.  We  see 
instantaneously  and  judge  of  distances  and  shapes;  but  it  is 
because  we  have  learned  to  see. 

8.  From  what  has  been  last   said,   and  from  what  is   re 
marked  of  the  laughter  of  infants  being  turned  into  crying  by  425 
a  little  increase  of  the  shock,   we  may   conceive  how  smaller 
absurdities3,  faults,  &c.  may  excite  laughter,   though  greater 
faults    excite    abhorrence    and   detestation,   even   where    there 

is  some  kind  of  contrast  or  coincidence ;  and  how  a  man  of 
nice  moral  feelings  may  abhor,  what  one  less  delicate,  or  more 
hardened,  may  only  laugh  at :  or  how  even  the  same  man  may 
be  differently  affected  in  different  states  of  his  nerves. 

9.  And,  though  we    have    yet    ascribed  gravity  to  only 
one  cause,  comprehensive  views  of  the  nature  of  actions,  yet 
we  may  now  perceive  other  causes,      i.  A  man  will  be  habitu 
ally  grave,  if  he  has  not  from  nature  much  moral  sensibility, 
or  very  irritable  nerves,      ii.   If  he  has  moral  sensibility  par 
ticularly  quick  and  strong;   in  which  case  he  will  detest  what 


1  Instances  to  the  purpose  appear  in 
Mr.  Burke's  Essay  on  the  Sublime  and 
Beautiful. 


2  Sect.  3. 

3  Smaller  faults  are  called  in  French 
by  the  name  of  Ridicules. 


II.  iii.  10,  11.]  RIDICULE.  303 

I,  others  only  laugh  at.  iii.  If  the  moral  sensibility  which  he 
has  in  his  constitution  has  not  been  exercised,  but  has  been 
overpowered  by  other  feelings  ; — by  affliction,  earnest  pursuits, 
of  riches,  honours,  &c.  or  by  any  passions  or  appetites,  iv.  If 
his  moral  feelings  have  been  hardened  and  seared  by  much 
wickedness  :  the  wicked  man  will  laugh,  indeed,  sometimes 
at  what  others  detest,  but,  when  others  laugh  he  will  be  in 
sensible,  v.  Gravity  will  sometimes  arise  from  a  persuasion 
that  ridicule  is  sinful. 

10.  Sometimes  an  absurdity  of  the  ridiculous  sort  raises, 
in  men  of  refined  minds,  only  a  sort  of  internal  laughter,  or 
a    sentiment   corresponding    to    laughter :    this    sentiment   has 
not  a  name.      Dr.   Brown4,  I   think,  calls  it  contempt;   and 
it   may  be   so  like  contempt,  as   to  make  it  natural  for  that 
name  to  be  borrowed   and    used,   when   there   is    occasion    to 

426  express  it :  but  contempt  is  often  an  elated,  lofty,  and  a 
serious  sentiment.  The  sentiment  (or  the  contempt  if  you 
please)  of  ridicule  is  not  inconsistent  with  kindness  to  the  object 
of  it,  nor  even  with  respect  to  his  character  upon  the  whole. 
Contempt  seems  also  simple,  or  unmixed — ridicule  to  be 
always  compound ;  contempt  takes  profound  views  of  things  ; 
the  views  of  ridicule  are  always  superficial:  if  an  object  be 
purely  contemptible,  you  do  not  laugh  at  it.  When  contempt 
helps  to  excite  laughter  it  is  by  effervescing  with  respect :  a 
man  who  despises  public  worship  does  not  laugh  at  church ;  a 
man  who  respects  it  in  a  certain  degree  is  apt  to  do  so  :  a  still 
stronger  respect  would  prevent  his  laughing. 

11.  If  it  were  to  be  asked,  then,  what  it  is  to  ridicule  a 
subject,  we  might  give  some  such  answer  as  the  following :   it 
is  to  give  two  different  views  of  it,   at  the  same  time,  which 
shall  excite  opposite  feelings  ;   one  view  shall  excite  some  sort 
of  respect,  or  approbation,  the  other  some  sort  of  disrespect  or 
disapprobation,  which  shall  be  rather  predominant.      The  mind 
shall  attend  to  both  views,  and  experience  the  joint  effect  of 
both  feelings,  which  shall  be  a  shock  upon  the  moral  sense,  or 
sense  of  propriety,  decency,  &c. ;   but  not  strong  beyond  a  cer 
tain  degree.      To  give  the  two  different  views  here  required, 
there  will  be  various  ways  of  combining  ideas  belonging  to  the 
subject,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  form  images*  suitable  to  the 
purpose ;   contrasts,  coincidences,  &c.  which  cannot  be  specified 
beforehand.      Nay,  even  when  these   images,  &c.   have    been 

4  In  his  Essays  on  the  Characteristics  of  Lord  Shaftesbury.  5  Cole,  p.  1C. 


304  RIDICULE.  [II.  iii.  12,  13. 

formed,  and  have  had  their  effect  in  exciting  laughter,  it  will    I. 
be  often  very  difficult  to  mark  out,  in  a  very  minute  and  satis 
factory  manner,  how  that  effect  has  been  produced. 

12.  Man  is  the  only  risible  animal :  why?  because  he  only   4-27 
has  a  conscience,  or  moral  faculty ;   he  only  seems  to  have  a 
sense  of  propriety,  and  to  be  shocked  by  absurdity  or  turpitude, 

as  such.  If  this  be  a  right  representation,  ridicule  ought  not 
to  be  held  in  very  low  esteem :  this  seems  sufficient  to  rank  it 
above  all  those  parts  of  our  constitution  which  we  have  in  com 
mon  with  the  brute  creation.  The  monkey,  to  be  sure,  grins, 
but  he  is  perfectly  grave  even  when  he  does  ridiculous  tricks  ; 
this  makes  us,  when  once  persuaded  of  the  gravity,  the  more 
inclined  to  laugh  at  them.  A  ridiculous  action,  with  a  per 
fectly  grave  countenance1,  makes  a  striking  contrast. 

13.  But  the  principal  question,  which  has  arisen  concerning 
ridicule,  is,  how  far  it  is  the  test2  of  truth  ?   It  does  not  seem 
to  be  either  more  or  less  a  test  of  truth  than  any  other  species 
of  eloquence.     Some  kinds  of  eloquence  are  best  adapted  to 
expose  great  and  important  faults,  incongruities,  &c.  :  ridicule 
is  best  adapted  to  expose  such  as  are  more  trifling.      Ridicule 
must  be  examined,  but  must  not  also  serious  eloquence  ?  Ridi 
cule,  therefore,  cannot  be  a  test,  of  itself  merely,  but  still  it  may 
assist  in  discerning  falsehood  :  a  pair  of  scales  is  an  useful  test 
of  weights,  though  not  till  they  themselves  have  been  examined. 

When  ingenious  writers  assert  any  thing  which  seems 
strange  to  me,  I  conclude  that  they  have  some  meaning  which  I 
do  not  at  first  conceive.  Possibly  those  who  say  ridicule  is  the 
test  of  truth,  mean,  that  people  are  sometimes  so  prejudiced 
that  they  will  not  hear  reason,  and  nothing  can  reach  them  428 
but  ridicule;  which,  they  take  for  granted,  is  well-grounded 
ridicule.  When  men  say  that  ridicule  is  not  the  test  of  truth, 
they  generally  conceive  the  ridicule  to  be  ill-grounded.  Both 
may  be  right,  in  some  measure.  On  the  one  hand,  well- 
grounded  ridicule  does  make  men  feel  follies  in  superstition 
and  enthusiasm ;  on  the  other  hand,  ill-grounded  ridicule  ought 
not  to  make  any  man  give  up  any  religious  notion  or  principle. 
But  still,  comic  and  serious  eloquence  are  upon  the  same  foot 
ing;  for  serious  eloquence  may  give  the  alarm,  and  afterwards 
be  attended  to  or  not,  according  to  the  dictates  of  reason  : 

1  Jocus  eo  salsior,  quo  sevcrior  diccntis  i  2  See  a  short  specimen  of  Lord  Shaftes- 
Vultus.  Pearce's  Cic.  de  Or.  Index  bury's  reasoning,  in  AVarburton's  Ded. 
rerum,  jocus.  \  to  Freethinkers,  p.  12.  fjvo. 


II.  iii.  14.]  RIDICULE.  305 

I.  if  well-grounded,  it  will  be  effectual ;  if  ill-grounded,  in 
effectual. 

Serious  eloquence  may  not  lower  or  debase  our  feelings; 
but  does  it  not  do  much  harm  if  it  perverts  them  ? 

14.  Ridicule  may  be  useful  to  truth  and  virtue3.  To 
truth  it  may  be  useful,  by  preventing  pedantry,  and  that  affec 
tation  of  mystery  and  pomp,  which  has  so  much  impeded  the 
progress  of  useful  science.  It  can  make  high-sounding  terms 
lose  all  their  virtue,  and  set  the  practical  knowledge  of  the 
common  people  on  a  rank  equally  high  with  the  fine-spun  the 
ories  of  fanciful  philosophers.  It  is  too  great  veneration  for 
notions  and  persons  which  is  apt  to  make  error  too  lasting ;  and 
veneration  may  be  lessened  by  ridicule. 

To  virtue  ridicule  is  useful  by  curing  smaller  follies  and 
foibles,  and  by  hindering  men  from  carrying  the  nobler  passions 
to  excess.  These,  when  indulged  too  seriously,  generate  ca 
prices  and  singularities:  the  worst  excite  abhorrence.  Forti- 
429  tude  may  make  a  man  a  Quixot  or  a  Colonel  Bath4;  justice 
may  run  into  misanthrophy  or  scrupulousness ;  patriotism  may 
form  a  chimerical  politician;  piety  an  enthusiast;  and  so  on: 
but  a  man  disposed  to  moderate  ridicule  will  run  into  none 
of  these  follies;  he  will  be  unaffectedly  and  rationally  brave, 
just,  public-spirited,  devout.  And,  at  the  same  time,  he  will 
keep  clear  of  being  effeminate,  proud,  vain,  selfish,  sensual, 
peevish,  dejected,  anxious,  cunning,  hypocritical,  &c. :  that  is, 
ridicule  may  be  made  useful  to  virtue,  by  its  influence  both  on 
the  virtuous  and  vicious  passions. 

I  have,  indeed,  no  notion  of  any  one's  studying  or  acting 
better  than  a  man  would  do  if  he  kept  continually  trying  his 
reasonings  and  his  actions  by  ridicule. 

His  knowledge  would  be  easy,  unaffected,  cheerful,  yet 
accurate  ;  free  from  pedantry  ;  constantly  corrected,  and  there 
fore  constantly  improved. 

His  virtue  would  be  genuine  and  simple,  natural  and 
pleasant.  He  would  not  have  a  pomp  and  parade  of  serious 
humility,  but  that  virtue  would  flourish  in  his  mind:  he  would 
not  be  continually  preaching  on  temperance,  but  practise  its 
various  duties  as  matters  of  course.  He  would  not  keep 


:!  Bishop  Warburton  asserts  the  con 
trary.  Ded.  to  Freethinkers,  p.  21.  »vo. 
"Its  natural  effect  is  to  mislead  the 


lute."    But  are  we  clear  about  the  force 
of  "//*?" 
4  A  duellist  in  Fielding's  Amelia. 


judgment,  and  to  make  the  heart  disso- 

VOL.  I.  20 


306  RIDICULE.  [II.  iii,  15. 

boasting  of  his  generosity,  but,  after  shewing  the  most  noble    I. 
instances  of  it,  he  would  set  them  all  in  a  familiar1  light,  so  as 
to  claim  no  merit  from  them. 

A  friend  might,  by  kindly  setting  one's  actions  in  a 
ridiculous  light,  act  as  a  sort  of  second  self. 

15.  We  must  not  conclude  this  Chapter,  without  some 
notice  of  the  passage  quoted  by  2 Aristotle  from  Gorgias  of  430 
Leontium,  who  affirms  $e?y  r^V  fjiev  (nrovSrjv  Sta<f)0^ip€tv  TWV 
cvavTiiov,  rye\wT£,  TOV  de  yeXtoTa  (nrovor).  Aristotle  adds, 
opOws  \eywv ;  Aristotle  is  of  opinion  that  Gorgias  spoke  very 
justly  when  he  said,  that  we  ought  to  confound  the  serious 
argument  of  our  adversaries  by  ridicule,  and  their  ridicule  by 
serious  argument.  This  idea  seems  to  agree  with  the  repre 
sentation  here  given ;  the  serious  argument  which  may  be 
ridiculed  is  only  here  supposed  to  be  argument  used  at  the 
bar.  I  look  upon  the  plan  of  the  ancient  to  be  better  than 
either  slighting  ridicule,  or  being  afraid  of  it ;  especially  as  it 
provides  against  its  running  into  extravagance. 

We  might  inquire,  whether  the  remark,  here  confined  to 
ridicule,  is  not  capable  of  being  carried  farther  ?  whether,  at 
least,  one  something  like  it  might  not  be  proposed  thus:  'we 
should  correct  our  reason  by  our  feelings,  and  our  feelings  by 
our  reason?'  Sometimes  our  feelings  conduct  us  right  when 
our  reason  would  not,  as  when  our  reason  is  too  serious,  and 
too  remote  from  common  life;  and  sometimes  our  feelings 
would  tell  us  things  of  which  our  reason  would  leave  us  igno 
rant.  Sometimes,  indeed,  our  reason  is  quite  necessary  to  cor 
rect  the  suggestions  of  our  feelings.  But,  if  we  use  first  one, 
then  the  other,  and  that  repeatedly,  we  profit  most :  for  each 
of  them,  besides  correcting  the  other,  improves  upon  it — steps 
forward,  and  makes  a  little  advancement. 

'  Dr.  Harrison  in  Amelia.     Qu.  So-          '  Aristot'  Rhet'  L'  3"  C"  13'  ad  finem' 


crates  ? 


See  the  passage  quoted  in  Brown's  Es 
says,  p.  43. 


II.  Iv.  1,  2.]  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  307 

I. 

431  CHAPTER    IV. 

OF    USING    RIDICULE    IN    DISPUTES    ABOUT    RELIGION. 

1.  IF  the  question  were  proposed,  whether  Ridicule  should 
ever  be  used  in  religious  controversy,  we  may  conceive  sensible 
people  to  give  different  or  opposite  answers.  Some  might  say, 
if  ridicule  is  a  means  of  getting  at  the  truth,  let  us  not  neglect 
to  use  it ;  let  us  have  our  religion  as  free  from  error  as  pos 
sible  ;  the  more  pure  our  faith,  the  more  rational  our  practice  : 
and  besides,  if  ridicule  can  prevent  those  follies  which  are  apt 
to  arise  from  a  too  serious  indulgence  of  even  the  best  passions, 
let  us  apply  it,  and  make  our  virtue  as  unaffected  and  rational 
as  we  are  able.  There  is  no  perfect  religion  without  perfect 
virtue. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  might  say,  you  ought  to  use 
serious  argument  about  important  things  :  never  use  ridicule 
to  convince  men — never  let  that  which  ought  to  be  held 
sacred  be  made  the  subject  of  contempt  and  derision.  And, 
if  you  laugh  men  out  of  their  religious  principles  you  leave 
them  unprincipled.  What  is  the  harm  of  profaneness  but  its 
loosening  men's  good  sentiments,  taking  from  them  those  feel 
ings  which  would  make  them  act  rightly,  and  making  them 
careless  and  light-minded  about  their  religious  obligations? 
what  is  corruption,  but  debasing  men's  minds,  or  dispositions, 
and,  in  consequence,  their  principles  of  action  ? 

There  seems  to  be  force  in  both  these  arguings,  and,  as 

432  far  as  they  are  founded  in  reason,  they  must  be  reconcileable 
to  each  other.      Our   business,  in  the  present  chapter,  is,  to 
consider   how   they  may  be  reconciled; — and  we  may  lay  it 
down   in  general,  that,  whenever  two  propositions,  which  are 
true,    seem    inconsistent,   it  is  owing   to  their  implying  some 
different  situations  and  circumstances.      How  far  general  ex 
pressions  are  capable  of  interpretation  by  a  reference  to  parti 
cular  circumstances,  we  have  seen  in  the  10th  and  llth  Chap 
ters  of  the  first  Book. 

2.  First,  There  is  a  great  difference  between  a  plan  drawn 
for  a  particular  state  of  things,  and  one  drawn  for  mankind  at 
large.  If  you  provide  rules  for  mankind  at  large,  you  have 
only  to  study  the  general  principles  of  human  nature  ;  if  for 
any  particular  people  at  any  particular  time,  you  must 
estimate  the  effects  of  all  their  particular  qualities  and  habitual 

20—2 


308  RIDICULE     IN     RELIGION.  [II.  iv.  3,  4. 

opinions.      The  difference  here  is  of  the  same  kind  with  that    I. 
between  a  system  of  morals,  and  a  code  of  civil  laws. 

Dr.  Powell,  in  the  Charge  which  I  have  recommended, 
seems  to  l  speak,  without  reserve,  against  the  use  of  ridicule  in 
religious  controversy ;  but  he  seems  also  to  write  with  a  view 
to  present  use,  and  therefore  he  would  of  course  only  allow  so 
much  liberty  as  may  be  safe  and  salutary  in  the  present  state 
of  things.  It  may  be,  that  he  would  have  expressed  himself 
differently  had  he  been  speaking  with  a  view  to  mankind  at 
large,  and  to  that  perfection  which  they  should  endeavour  gra 
dually  to  attain.  It  is  possible  that  his  meaning  may  not  be 
contradictory  to  ours,  as  expressed  in  the  preceding  chapter ; 
and  I  hope  that,  hereafter,  that  will  appear  to  be  the  case. 

3.  We  now  proceed  to  other  considerations,   tending  to 
reconcile  the  opinions  for  and   against  using  ridicule  in   reli-  433 
gion,  by    shewing   when   it   ought   to  be  used,   and   when   it 
ought  not. 

The  fundamental  maxims  on  which  the  contending  parties 
build  their  opinions  seem  to  be  these :  truth  and  virtue  ought 
to  be  cultivated  and  improved:  men's  minds  ought  not  to  be 
corrupted.  No  one  can  oppose  either  of  these  maxims.  If, 
in  the  imperfection  of  human  affairs,  if,  amidst  the  dangers 
which  attend  even  doing  things  right  without  reserve,  both 
maxims  cannot  be  practised  freely,  and  without  restraint,  our 
view  must  be,  to  see  how  we  can  approach  nearest  to  gaining 
the  joint  benefit  of  both — how  we  can  make  a  compromise 
between  them. 

Here  again,  for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  I  fear  we  must, 
for  a  while,  make  a  supposition,  to  which  fact  does  not  quite 
come  up,  and  that  is,  that  mankind  may  be  divided  into  philo 
sophers  and  people ;  nay,  moreover,  that  philosophers  can  say 
and  do  things  independently  of  the  people,  so  as  not  to  hurt 
their  principles.  But,  if  such  a  division  is  really  the  best 
means  of  arriving  to  a  knowledge  of  what  we  ought  to  do, 
we  should  not  refuse  it  our  attention.  We  therefore  proceed. 

4.  It  is  useful  that  the  opinions  of  some  persons  should 
be  under  establishments,  as  well  in  religion  as  in  morals,  law, 
physic,  agriculture,  &c.  :  that  is,  that  ordinary  men,  in  their 
ordinary  actions,  should  not  have   to  look  to  first  principles, 
but  should  act  readily,  from  principles  or  rules  already  settled. 
Such  principles  or  rules  must  indeed  be  supposed  to  have  been 

1   P.  30f». 


II.  iv.   1.]  RIDICULE     IN    RELIGION.  309 

I.    duly  examined  by  some  persons,  before  they  were  so  settled, 

Pand  to  be  continually  revised  by  the  same  :  these  persons  must 
be  such  as  have  been  able  and  rightly  qualified  to  give  them 
selves  up  to  an  attentive  consideration  of  first  principles.  It 

434  seems  implied  in  the  idea  of  every  establishment  ^  that  some 
persons  take  the  lead  in  it,  and  are  the  depositaries  of  the  set 
of  established  maxims  from  which  common  men  are  to  act. 
And  to  follow  these  persons  and  these  maxims  is.  ordinarily, 
the  truest  prudence.  This  is  founded  on  the  plain  principle, 
that  those  who  understand  a  subject  best  can  best  direct  what 
is  to  be  done  with  regard  to  that  subject ;  and  that  any  man 
stands  the  best  chance  of  going  right  by  following  an  opinion 
of  one  much  better  skilled  than  himself;  and  that  no  common 
men  are  capable  of  examining  first  principles  before  they  act. 
This  is  so  generally  acknowledged  in  all  men^s  actions,  when 
they  are  really  in  earnest,  that  not  to  act  upon  it,  in  any  case, 
proves  them  not  to  be  in  earnest,  but  desirous  of  evading 
their  duty.  It  is  most  useful  that  the  generality  should  not 
judge  for  themselves  in  medical  matters,  but  take  the  opinion 
of  a  physician.  This  is  not  denied  when  men  are  in  earnest. 
What  family  would  give  the  father  of  it  a  medicine  against 
the  advice  of  a  physician  ?  If  a  family  did  venture,  and  the 
father  died,  they  would  be  blamed  for  his  death,  though  they 
had  the  best  opinion  of  the  medicine :  if  he  died  after  receiving 
the  medicine  of  the  physician,  they  would  not  be  blamed,  how 
ever  wrong  the  physician  judged ;  because  it  is  a  general  rule, 
for  the  general  good,  that  the  physician  should  judge  in 
physic. 

I  have  said  establishments.  There  are  establishments,  or 
sets  of  established  maxims,  in  every  thing.  In  physic,  there 
are  such  a  set :  they  admit  of  some  latitude,  and  some  variety ; 
and  sometimes  men,  who  wish  to  distinguish  themselves,  will 
affect  to  depart  from  them,  as  far  as  they  dare  :  but  variations 
of  this  sort  are  not  great.  Sometimes,  however,  very  con 
siderable  changes  will  take  place  in  the  way  of  general  re- 

4-35  formations ;  as  has  been  the  case  in  the  established  manner  of 
treating  the  small-pox,  in  our  own  country. 

In  agriculture  there  is  an  established  set  of  maxims  in 
each  country,  which  also  admit  of  some  varieties,  and  some 
changes  and  reformations.  What  farmer  could  invent  theories 
or  rules  for  himself?  In  law  prudent  men  go  much  upon 
the  authority  of  others.  And  men  do  really  go  by  established 


310  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  [II.  iv.  5. 

rules  in  morality,  though  they  may  not  always  be  aware  of  I. 
it.  The  best  of  these  rules  are  far  short  of  perfect  virtue; 
and  the  rules  differ  much  in  different  ages  and  countries. 
Conscience  also  seems  to  follow  established  virtue.  Par 
ticular  professions  have  peculiar  moral  maxims,  as  soldiers 
have  rules  of  honour,  merchants  rules  of  prudence  and  fair 
dealing,  &c. 

There  is  no  stronger  reason  for  following  established  rules, 
in  any  of  these  things,  than  there  is  for  following  them  in 
religion ;  because  the  ordinary  people  are  as  little  capable 
of  judging  for  themselves  in  religion  as  in  any  thing.  And 
religion  cannot  be  carried  on  effectually  without  uniformity, 
(as  we  shall  see  more  clearly  hereafter),  nor  uniformity  main 
tained  without  constant  submission  to  authority1. 

5.  Having  thus  laid  open  the  reason  why  our  proposed 
division  into  people  and  philosophers  should  be  made,  we  may 
proceed  with  greater  satisfaction  to  get  a  definite  idea  of  the 
difference  between  them.  Those  who  only  learn  and  practise  436 
established  rules,  may  be  called  the  people ;  those  who  examine 
and  reform  such  rules,  divesting  themselves  of  prejudice, 
are  philosophers.  According  to  this,  philosophers  should 
search  freely  for  truth  wherever  they  are  likely  to  find  it.  The 
people  want  only  to  be  taught  what  has  been  already  approved 
and  ratified;  and  to  have  such  sentiments  inculcated  as  will 
make  them  practise  established  duties  with  spirit  and  con 
stancy.  Philosophers  should  know  2good  and  evil;  the  people 
should  know  no'thing  that  will  corrupt  them.  Both  should 
keep  continually  improving;  philosophers  by  their  own  re 
searches — the  people  by  what  philosophers  think  it  right  to  com 
municate  to  them,  after  their  researches  have  been  thoroughly 
digested3. 

1  Art.  xx.  of  the  Church  of  England,  j  as  this  has  been  felt  in  different  ages; 
But  are  there  here  sufficient  remedies,  in  |  see  Wotton's  Misna,  p.  22,  about  Fools 
case  philosophers  should  want  to  enslave  and  Wise  Men.  Warburton's  Div.  Leg. 
the  people  ?  Philosophers  should  be  ac-  about  exoteric  and  esoteric  doctrines 
countable  finally  to  the  people,  as  minis-  !  (Index).  The  Manicheans  were  divided 
ters  of  state  are  to  the  main  body  of  the  j  into  Elect  and  Auditors.  It  should,  how- 
citizens,  ever,  be  remarked,  that  we  do  not  wish 

Du  Pin,  in  his  negotiation  with  Arch-  j  to  keep  any  persons  in  entire  and  per- 

bishop  AVrake,  seems  to  make  too  great  a  ,  pctiuil  ignorance  of  any  thing  valuable ; 

difference  between  philosophers  (as  we  but  only  (like  our  Saviour  and  St.  Paul) 

call  them)  and  people.  Appendix  to  j  to  communicate  knowledge  to  the  people 

Mosheim.  ;is  they  are  able  to  bear  it;  to  let  them 

-  (Jen.  iii.  A.  grow    (/radically,    from   being    babes    in 

3  The  necessity  of  some  such  distinction  I    Christ,  to  a  fulness  of  stature. 


II.  iv.  5.]  RIDICULE    IN    IIELIGION.  311 

I.  It  must  not  be  thought  to  be  here  affirmed,  that,  in  fact, 

you  can  choose  one  set  of  men  who  are  always  to  guide  and 
direct,  like  these  supposed  philosophers,  and  another  set  who 
are  always  to  be  guided4  in  every  thing.  This  is  not  even 
a  part  of  our  supposition.  Most  men,  if  not  all,  have  occasion 
sometimes  to  assume  one  character,  and  sometimes  the  other. 
He  who  is  a  philosopher  in  this  matter  will  be  one  of  the 

437  people  in   that;   nay,  in  one  and  the  same  matter,  at  different 
times,  it  may  be  right    for  the  same  person  to  act  in  different 
capacities ;   sometimes  as  a  philosopher,  sometimes  as  one  of 
the  people.     When   I   am  in  my   study,    and    thinking  of  a 
subject  within  my  profession,   I  look   upon   myself  as   bound 
to   search   for    truth,    simply,    plainly,   and    without    reserve; 
to  take  no  doctrines   on   trust :   I  am   there  the  philosopher ; 
(a  lover  of  wisdom   no  one  need  be   afraid   to  call  himself). 
When  I  go  to  church  for  public  worship,  I  am   one  of  the 
people,  a  mere  man,  making  use  of  the  establishment  to  which 
I  belong,  of  its  doctrines  and  its  ceremonies,  to  excite  in  my 
mind    right   sentiments   for    the   purposes    of  life   and  action. 
I   am  neither  theologian  nor  critic.    If  I  had  a  much  meaner 
opinion  of  Sternhold   and   Hopkins   than   I   at   present    have, 
I  could  sing  their  Psalms  with  devotion  and  edification.     And, 
surely,  if  a  divine  makes  himself  one  of  the  people  in  religious 
assemblies,  much  more  should  a  lawyer,  a  physician,  a  states 
man  ;  indeed,  if  they  are  treated  as  philosophers  in  law,  physic, 
and  politics,  so  ought  a  divine  to  be  in  religion.     It  will  never 
improve    mankind  to   have   more   done    on   the   authority    of 
lawyers  and  physicians  in  law  and   physic,  than  on  the  autho 
rity   of  divines  in    religion.     The    Religio'"   Laid  should   be 
founded  on  the  authority   of  divines,  as  much  as  the  regimen 
of  a  sick  person   on  that  of  physicians. 

There  may  indeed  be  divines,  who  are  not  such  by  profes 
sion,  worthy  to  be  reckoned  philosophers  in  that  branch.  No 
one  would  deny  that  title  to  Mr.  Locke,  Mr.  Nelson,  Sir  Isaac 
Newton.  On  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  divines  by  pro 
fession,  who  have  not  sufficiently  studied  religious  truth  to 

438  be    entitled   to   take   the   lead.     Both   these  things,    however, 
may  happen,  with   regard    to  other    professions    or    branches 
of  knowledge. 

<  Such,  however,  seems  to  have  been,    j  n°W  me^ioned>  in  tllc  note  immediately 

in  some  measure,  the  notion  of  those  just    I  Prece"inS- 

5  Title  of  Lord  Herbert's  book. 


312  RIDICULE    IN     11EL1GION.  [II.  IV.  6,  7. 

Let  every  one   be  always   either  improving    his   opinions    I, 
as  a  philosopher,   or  learning  to  practise  them  as  a  man. 

6.  One  of  the  principal  conclusions  which  we  would  draw 
from  what  has  been  said,  on  this  division  into  philosophers 
and  people,  is  this :  were  there  a  set  of  men  who  were  merely 
philosophers,  in  any  matter,  religion  by  no  means  excepted, 
it  would  be  their  duty  to  use  every  means,  ridicule  amongst  the 
rest,  of  exploring  and  clearing  up  the  truth.  The  other  prin 
cipal  conclusion  is,  were  there  a  set  of  men  who  were  merely 
people,  it  would  be  their  duty  to  take  their  knowledge  and 
rules  of  action  from  the  authority  of  philosophers ;  and  it 
would  be  the  duty  of  philosophers,  and  of  the  world  at  large, 
to  refrain  from  using  ridicule  to  them,  and  from  doing  or 
saying  any  thing  which  could  loosen  their  attachment  to  their 
duty,  or  make  them  negligent  or  light-minded  about  it. 

The  former  of  these  conclusions  seems  most  likely  to  be 
contested.  But  to  me  it  appears,  that  mere  philosophers, 
if  such  they  were,  ought  to  examine  patiently  all  kinds  of 
profane  and  blasphemous  ridicule;  nay,  rather  seek  for  such 
methods  of  trying  serious  truth.  But  this  is  no  privilege,  it 
is  rather  a  duty.  The  process  might  be  almost  as  loathsome 
as  searching  for  the  philosopher's  stone,  or  making  phospho 
rus;  but  the  interests  of  truth  would  be  promoted.  And, 
if  men  properly  qualified  avoid  doing  this,  they  are  shutting 
their  eyes:  they  are  presuming  to  lay  aside  an  instrument 
which  God  has  put  into  their  hands,  lest  they  should  do 
mischief  with  it,  though  they  are  particularly  prepared  for 
using  it  beneficially.  They  make  themselves  wiser  than  the 
Creator,  and  become  punishable  for  the  mischiefs  arising  from  4 
that  error  which  they  might  have  escaped. 

It  will  be  more  easily  granted,  that  the  people  ought  to 
be  secured  from  the  influence  of  profane  and  blasphemous 
scurrility,  and  every  sort  of  prudence  observed  which  could 
nourish  in  their  breasts  a  serious  veneration  for  religion1. 

7-  On  the  whole  then,  we  ask,  shall  religion  be  ridiculed  ? 
to  philosophers  it  may  ;  to  the  people  it  may  not.  But  this 
answer  is  only  satisfactory  on  suppositions  which  arc  not 
perfectly  agreeable  to  fact ;  that  men  can,  in  practice,  be  di- 

1  Since  this  was  first  written,  things  j  judges  of  every  thing.    All  I  would  say 

seem   to  have  been  taking  a  turn,  with  j  is,    we  must  watch  the  experiment ;   in 

regard  to  the  people's  judging  for  them-  what  has  appeared  Itillicrto  there  is  r.o- 

selves :    the    people  are   now    reckoned  I  thing  convincing  us  of  error. 


II.  iv.   ?.]  RIDICULE     IN    HELIGIOK.  313 

I,  vided  into  philosophers  and  people;  and  that  ridicule  can 
be  published  to  philosophers,  and  concealed  from  the  people. 
Something,  therefore,  must  be  farther  deduced  from  what 
has  been  said,  which  shall  be  more  applicable  to  the  actual 
state  of  things.  But  first  let  us  consider  an  illustration  of 
our  subject,  as  it  may  confirm  what  is  already  said,  and  pos 
sibly  furnish  us  with  some  hints  which  may  be  of  use  in  our 
last  practical  conclusion. 

Many  laws  have  been  made  against  the  dissection  of 
human  bodies:  some,  perhaps,  on  account  of  men's  veneration 
for  the  dead,  others,  possibly,  on  principles  of  decency.  With 
out  dwelling  on  the  reasons  of  such  laws,  suppose  we  put  the 
question,  shall  the  human  body  be  exposed  to  view  in  all  its 
parts  ?  the  answer  is,  to  the  philosopher  it  shall,  to  the  people 
it  shall  not.  Any  reserve  to  the  philosopher  would  be  a  great 
harm  to  a  very  useful  science ;  perfect  freedom  to  the  people 
would  be  a  means  of  promoting  vicious  sentiments. 
440  This  instance  may  serve  to  illustrate  every  thing  which 
has  been  said  in  the  present  chapter.  A  person  who  wrote 
with  a  view  to  mankind  at  large,  would  endeavour  to  reconcile 
reasons  for  and  against  the  exposure  we  are  speaking  of:  one 
who  wrote  merely  for  the  present  state  of  things  in  ordinary 
life,  would  press  the  duties  of  decency  and  purity,  and  pass 
over  the  improvements  in  science  as  smoothly  as  possible. 
It  is  useful  that  common  persons  should  comply  with  the  set 
of  maxims  established  in  their  own  time  and  country,  with 
regard  to  purity  and  the  mutual  reserve  of  the  sexes.  These 
may  vary ;  be  different  here  and  at  Otaheite ;  in  this  age  and 
in  the  ages  of  chivalry ;  but  that  does  not  affect  the  general 
remark.  The  philosophers,  in  this  case,  are  the  anatomists 
and  surgeons  ;  with  the  addition  of  some  who  are  in  pursuit 
of  philosophical  knowledge  of  an  extensive  sort.  Yet  these 
ought  to  be  under  establishments  in  other  things — law,  politics, 
religion;  in  which  they  cannot  get  the  knowledge  of  philoso 
phers  without  neglecting  their  own  department.  And  the 
same  person  who,  in  the  dissecting-room,  examined  all  the 
parts  of  the  body  without  distinction  or  reserve,  should,  in 
the  common  scenes  of  life,  use  caution,  in  order  to  preserve 
his  mind  uncorrupted,  to  keep  at  a  distance  from  vicious 
disorder  and  irregular  desire.  To  use  reserve  in  the  dissect 
ing-room  would  be  to  neglect  his  duty,  and  would  make  him 
accountable  for  any  disorders  which  his  unreserved  search 


314  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  [II.  iv.  7- 

might  have  prevented.     To  act  as  an  anatomist  in  the  common    I. 
scenes  of  life  would  render  him  obnoxious  to  punishment  for 
corruption  and  seduction. 

The  illustration  which  we  have  adopted  naturally  leads 
us  on  farther  to  an  useful  remark — that,  when  exposure  is 
dangerous  to  the  people,  partial  exposure  is  more  so  than 
total.  Because  imagination  heightens  and  colours  beyond  the  441 
reality,  and  takes  no  notice  of  what  might  disgust.  Nor  is  it 
checked  by  scruples  of  the  moral  sense.  Indecency,  in  partial 
exposure,  gets  licensed  and  authorized  by  decency.  Curiosity 
too  reasons — 'how  well  worth  knowing  must  that  be  which 
is  so  carefully  concealed  !'  but  expose  totally,  and  all  false 
colouring  vanishes  ;  all  is  plain  downright  fact ;  disappointment 
ensues,  if  not  disgust.  Let  no  flimsy  coverings  then  be 
allowed  :  if  an  exposure  is  likely  to  be  troublesome,  prevent 
it  wholly,  or  not  at  all.  In  matters  relating  to  sensuality, 
I  have  always  found  that  young  persons  could  bear  in  plain 
language  what,  in  affected  figurative  language,  would  have 
debauched  their  minds. 

It  follows,  that  if  ridicule  be  entered  upon  at  all,  it  should 
be  examined  to  the  bottom  :  but  I  do  not  look  upon  ridicule  as 
equally  dangerous  with  sensuality.  Strip  ridicule  of  its  flimsy 
coverings,  and  it  is  usually  a  mere  skeleton,  a  mere  jointed 
baby.  Ludicrous  things  may  be  thrown  out  about  a  friend 
or  a  parent :  if  they  do  not  affect  you,  let  them  pass ;  if  they 
do,  examine  them,  and  they  will  vanish  like  vapour.  One 
should  not  read  such  a  book  as  the  history  of  the  Man  after 
God's  own  heart  slightly :  one  should  either  read  it  carefully, 
or  not  at  all. 

Now,  having  offered  some  illustration,  and  deduced  from 
it  an  useful  rule,  we  come  to  apply  what  has  been  said  to  the 
actual  state  of  things,  and  modify  our  theory  for  present  prac 
tice  ;  and  therefore  we  must  recollect,  that,  in  reality,  philoso 
phers  and  people  are  intermixed.  How  shall  we  compromise 
between  them,  not  fettering  philosophers,  and  not  corrupting 
people?  In  the  first  place,  we  must  never  entirely  neglect 
either :  we  must  rather  let  the  people  be  a  little  shocked,  than 
absolutely  confine  philosophical  researches;  and  we  must  rather  442 
restrain  philosophers  in  some  degree,  than  suffer  the  people  to 
be  set  quite  loose  in  their  principles.  At  different  times  the 
line  of  our  conduct  may  be  different.  We  must  search  and  try 
what  the  people  will  bear :  though,  in  some  sense,  they  are  in- 


II.  iv.  8.]  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  315 

I.  termixed  with  philosophers,  yet  they  often  know  but  little  of 
what  is  going  forward,  or  even  of  what  is  made  public,  in  the 
philosophical  world.  It  may  be  right  not  to  have  recourse  to 
ridicule,  when  it  can  easily  be  avoided :  the  people  should  not 
be  hurt,  when  no  compensation  is  made  to  the  public.  If  seri 
ous  argument  will  answer  the  purpose,  it  is  more  simple  and 
definite,  usually,  than  comic  ;  especially  as  ridicule  is  to  be 
examined  by  serious  argument.  Ridicule  may  sometimes  pre 
pare  the  way  for  serious  argument.  If  at  any  time  ridicule  be 
thought  needful,  it  should  not  be  coarse  or  low;  as  that  lessens 
the  respect  of  the  people  more  than  refined  humour :  nor  should 
it  be  applied  so  as  to  affect  particular  seasons  of  devotion ;  not 
in  the  time  of  public  worship,  or  near  it ;  before  or  after ; 
then,  even  the  philosopher  makes  himself  one  of  the  people. 
Neither  ought  it  to  be  levelled  at  persons  particularly  revered — 
parents,  civil  governors,  priests;  respect  towards  whom  faci 
litates  many  important  duties.  Elderly  people  too  are  often  in 
respectable  stations.  These  are  the  means  of  their  losing  the 
advantages  of  that  free  raillery  which  so  much  improves  young 
persons.  They  are  often  spared  on  account  of  their  connex 
ions;  and  the  principle  on  which  they  are  spared  should  be 
made  as  extensive  as  possible.  Were  I  to  go  into  a  Ma 
hometan  country,  I  would  never  drop  any  thing  slighting  of 
Mahomet,  to  the  people ;  nor  did  I  ever  ridicule  relics  in 
France,  or  encourage  papists  to  do  it.  It  seems  also  wrong, 
443  and  contrary  to  principles  of  general  utility,  to  interfere  with 
seminaries  of  education,  and  endeavour  to  root  up  the  doctrines 
which  a  young  person  has  had  planted  in  his  mind,  before  they 
come  to  maturity.  I  would  not,  on  any  account,  try  to  sub 
vert  the  established  principles  of  the  youth  in  a  seminary  of 
Protestant  Dissenters;  (I  wish  Dr.  Priestly  had  acted  from  the 
same  principle  to  our  universities)  ;  though  I  would  use  the 
utmost  frankness  in  controversy  with  the  leaders  of  any  sect. 

8.  This  is  the  best  decision,  concerning  the  use  of  ridicule 
in  religion,  to  which  we  seem  capable  of  arriving  at  present. 
I  feel  desirous  to  have  it  appear  not  wholly  irreconcileable  with 
Dr.  Powell's1.  He  excludes  ridicule  on  supposition  that  it  ex 
cludes  serious  argument :  we  only  suppose  it  to  open  men  to 
serious  argument,  and  we  examine  it  by  serious  argument.  He 
proscribes  it  as  dangerous  :  we  allow  it  to  be  used  only  when 
the  greater  danger  would  arise  from  setting  it  aside  ;  and  we 
1  Charge  1st.  Discourses,  p.  300. 


316  RIDICULE    IN    KELIGION.  [II.  IV.  9. 

attend  to  that  danger  to  which  it  might  expose  the  ordinary    I. 
people.      He  speaks  of  it  as  being  for  practice  more  than  specu 
lation  :    we  represent  it  as  useful  to  virtue,  and  as  tending  to 
cure  men  of  follies  of  every  sort. 

Yet  I  must  confess,  employing  ridicule  to  make  men 
ashamed  of  their  folly  in  religious  tenets,  seems  to  me  to  be,  in 
effect,  employing  it  in  controversy.  You  cannot  make  them 
ashamed,  without  convincing  them  in  some  sort :  you  cannot 
well  reprove,  without  instructing  in  one  way  or  other. 

9.  The  business  of  this  chapter  seems  now  finished:  but,  as 
ridicule  is  rather  a  nice  and  disputed  subject,  it  seems  as  if  it 
might  be  worth  our  while,  now  we  have  entered  into  it  pretty 
fully,  to  add  a  few  considerations,  not  confining  ourselves  to  the 
proper  subject  of  this  chapter — which  is,  the  application  of  444 
ridicule  to  disputes  about  religion. 

In  calculating  the  efficacy  of  ridicule  in  corrupting  the 
mind,  we  should  take  care  not  to  make  our  calculation  too 
high.  The  bad  effects  of  ridicule  are  really  less  durable  than 
they  appear  likely  to  be.  Our  thinking  them  likely  to  be  du 
rable,  is,  owing  to  our  want  of  experience  about  ridicule.  It 
seems  generally  true,  that,  when  we  are  not  accustomed  to  any 
sentiment,  we  think  it  less  transitory  than  we  shall  find  it.  La 
passion1  voit  tout  eternel.  A  boy  thinks  that,  if  a  thing  once 
pleases  him,  it  will  always  please  him;  and,  where  we  are  inex 
perienced,  we  are  boyish.  Disgusts  are  on  the  same  footing  with 
pleasing  sentiments  ;  they  wear  off  before  we  have  had  good  time 
to  fight  against  them.  It  hurts  one  to  see  a  respectable  magis 
trate  set  in  a  ridiculous  light,  but  let  him  appear  and  be  atten 
tive  to  the  important  business  of  his  office — let  him  smile  at 
himself — and  the  matter  is  quite  at  an  end.  Lord  Chancellor* 
Clarendon  might  set  at  nought  the  bellows  and  the  fire-shovel, 
when  he  had  conducted  one  debate  in  the  House  of  Peers.  George 
the  Third  of  England  has  been  attacked  with  ridicule,  about 
making  buttons,  wearing  a  rustic  dress,  speaking  in  a  quick 
way,  &c.  in  a  manner,  which  would  have  been  considered  as 
treasonable,  or  at  least  libellous,  in  some  reigns  ;  but  the  ridi 
cule  has  had  much  less  effect  by  being  suffered  to  die  away, 
than  if  it  had  been  resisted.  Could  he  now  3appear  in  any 
public  place,  what  has  been  said  of  him  would  be  so  far  from 
stopping  the  acclamations  of  his  subjects,  or  their  effusions  of 

1  Perede  Famillc,  par  Diderot,  Actc  I.          3  Nov.  24,  IJUH.     The  King  danger- 
Scene  6.  2  2,  3,  5.  i  ously  ill. 


II.  iv.  10.] 


RIDICULE    IX    RELIGION. 


317 


I.   joy  and  affection,  that  it  would  never  occur  to  the  mind  of  a 
single  person. 

4-45          Some  think  that  ridicule,  if  not  well  founded,  does  not  only 
miss  its  intended  effect,  but  recoils  upon  the  author  of  it4. 

10.  The  instances  now  alleged  may  be  sufficient  to  prove 
that  the  bad  effects  of  ridicule  are  transitory  ;  but  the  case  tff 
Socrates  is  so  particularly  interesting,  and  has  occasioned  such 
disputes,  that  it  seems  worthy  of  particular  mention.  It  is  said, 
that,  when  Anytus  and  Melitus,  the  accusers  of  Socrates,  could 
not  make  their  accusations  take  effect  against  him,  they  hired 
5  Aristophanes  to  set  him  in  a  ridiculous  light,  by  introducing 
him  in  an  humorous  comedy.  This  comedy,  called  the  Clouds, 
so  let  Socrates  down  in  the  eyes  of  his  judges,  so  took  off 
their  respect  for  him,  that  they  condemned  him  ;  and  he  was 
afterwards  put  to  death.  Bishop  Warburton,  in  his  Dedi 
cation  to  the  Freethinkers,  gives  Ga  spirited  account  of  this 
affair ;  which  he  afterwards  defends  in  a  Postscript,  I  think 
against  Dr.  Akenside.  He  mentions  it  as  a  proof,  that  "rail 
lery  in  defence  of  vice  and  error"  will  be  "an  overmatch  for 
that  employed  on  the  side  of  truth  and  virtue/'  To  account 
for  what  happened  at  Athens  400  years  before  Christ,  may  be 
difficult;  we  may  however  observe,  that  eloquence,  serious  or 
comic,  may  at  any  time  raise  a  storm,  whose  effects  may  be  im 
mediately  fatal,  if  there  is  no  way  of  resisting  them  ;  but  that 
this  does  not  seem  a  sufficient  reason  for  proscribing  any  sort  of 
eloquence.  Moreover,  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  coarse  ridicule  will, 
at  first,  be  more  powerful  than  refined ;  and  Aristophanes  might 
consider  Socrates  as  a  rival  in  wit,  and  a  favourer  of  Euripides, 

446  and  expose  him  the  more  on  that  account7.      But  our  plan  has 


4  Marmontel    says,    (Le    Bon    Mari, 
vol.  in.  p.  74.)   Quand  le  ridicule  n'est 
pas  fonde,   il  retombe  sur   ceux  qui  le 
donnent. 

5  See  the  last  Argument  to  the  Nules 
of  Aristophanes. 

c  P.  19,  8vo;p.  16,  4to. 

7  The  Nubes  of  Aristophanes  might 
operate  upon  the  Athenians  in  several 
ways  :  1.  It  might  debase  their  taste  in 
general,  and  so  give  them  a  dislike  to  all 
reiined  lively  reasoning.  2.  It  might 
give  them  a  general  prejudice  against 
Socrates  ;  against  every  thing  belonging 
to  him :  especially  it  would  have  this 
effect  on  such  as  were  not  used  to  correct 


their  feelings  by  their  reason.  It  re 
quires  a  good  deal  of  care  to  avoid  a 
disgust  against  those  who  are  made  to 
appear  before  .us  for  a  good  while  toge 
ther  in  an  odious,  contemptible  light. 
«'{.  It  might  make  Socrates  appear  an 
enemy  to  those  gods  which  they  had  been 
most  used  to  revere,  as  Jupiter  Pluvius, 
Jupiter  Tonans,  Apollo  Patrius ;  (Pot 
ter,  vol.  i.  p.  75.)  and  to  prefer  to  these 
very  silly  gods,  the  clouds,  air,  &c. 
4.  It  would  make  Socrates  odious,  by 
representing  him  as  teaching  men  the 
ways  of  evading  common  justice  and 
honesty,  by  sophistical  reasoning.  In 
Strepsiades's  evading  the  demands  of  his 


318  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  [II.  iv.ll. 

not  been  to  oppose  ridicule  to  ridicule ;   but  to  confound  ridi-   I. 
cule  by  serious  argument ;   rov  $e  yeXwra,  a-trov^y.      If,  then, 
any  people  follow  the  impressions  made  by  ridicule,  without 
serious  examination,  they  do  not  prove  any  thing  against  us. 

Whatever  might  be  the  cause  of  Socrates^s  death,  there 
seems  nothing  more  clear  than  that  no  ridicule  rests  upon  his 
character ;  though  the  Nubes  still  subsists,  and  is  allowed  to 
have  great  vis  comica:  nay,  in  the  time  of  Cicero,  Socrates  was 
admired  as  well  as  now.  Lucian  attacked  him  in  a  dialogue1, 
but  the  modern  admiration  of  his  character  seems  to  be  higher* 
than  even  the  ancient.  The  Nubes  would  not  probably  have 
the  effect  now  which  it  had  formerly,  even  if  it  were  well  per-  447 
formed. 

It  is  natural  to  mention,  that  the  attacks  of  Celsus  upon 
our  Saviour  have  now  as  little  effect  as  those  of  Aristophanes 
upon  Socrates.  Celsus  has  some  ridicule  upon  wood,  with 
allusion  to  the  cross,  and  to  the  residence  of  Jesus  in  the 
house  of  a  carpenter,  but  it  is  vapid ;  and  we  should  be  very 
glad  to  have  the  works  of  Celsus  entire,  whatever  profane  buf 
foonery  they  may  contain. 

11.  It  seems  worth  while  to  say  a  word  or  two  more3  on 
ridicule,  as  being  peculiar  to  man.  Mr.  Cole,  in  his  elegant 
Dissertation,  when  he  sums  up  his  considerations  relating  to  it, 
4 exhorts  us  to  cultivate  reason  in  preference  to  it,  alleging, 
that  reason  is  assigned  us  by  God,  and  distinguishes  man 
from  brute.  But  may  not  this  be  said  of  ridicule,  as  much 
as  of  reason  ?  The  reason  of  animals  has  at  least  been  con 
sidered  by  a  philosopher5  as  a  subject  of  discussion ;  but  we 
have  settled,  that  brutes  have  no  pretensions  to  ridicule  worth 
speaking  of.  Whatever  is  peculiar  to  human  nature  must 
surely  deserve  the  serious  attention  of  mankind.  Experience 
gives  us  no  room  to  conclude,  that  we  have  any  faculty  which 
is  not  worthy  of  cultivation ;  indeed,  every  faculty  we  have 
seems  capable  of  endless  improvement.  Had  we  only  a  pro- 
creditors,  there  is  as  much  implied  as  if  |  might  easily  be  affected  by  the  play,  and 
Aristophanes  had  said,  '  Now  you  think  the  eloquence  of  the  accusers.) 
this  very  absurd  reasoning  of  Strepsiades,  J  Between  Menippus  and  Cerberus, 

when  he  is  trying  to  escape  his  creditors,  2  See  Warb.  Ded.  to  the  Freethinkers, 

yet  it  is  the  very  same  kind  of  sophistry       as  before.     Diderot's  Comedies,  vol.  n. 
by  whifh  Socrates  evades  the  sentence  of  !   p.  203. 

the  Areopagus:'  (that  Socrates  would  be   '       3  See  before^Chap.  iii.  sect.  12. 
tried  by  the  Areopagus,  see  Potter,  vol.  i. 
pp.  102, 105 ;  but  he  had281  voters  against 


him,  besides  what  he  had  for  him :  these 


4  P.  Ifi. 

5  Mr.  Hume.     See  his  Essays. 


II.  iv.  12.]  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  319 

I.  boscis,  that  was  peculiar  to  us,  we  ought  to  study  it;  but, 
if  a  peculiarity  turns  upon  the  highest  part  of  our  nature, 
(which  the  moral  part  certainly  is,)  is  it  not  right  to  conclude 
that  it  is  intended  for  good  ends  of  an  high  and  important 
sort  ?  What  these  ends  particularly  are  must  be  found  out  by 
trials ;  and  the  immediate  view  of  these  trials  must  be,  to 

448  extract  all  possible  good  from  ridicule,  and  to  clear  that  good, 
as  much  as  possible,   from  all   evil   which   may  at  first  seem 
to  adhere  to  it.      We  might,  even  now,  expect  to  find  such 
good    as    present   cheerfulness,    and    alleviation    of   care    and 
anxiety ;   an  antidote  against  calamity,  when  it  would  poison 
the  sources  of  our  happiness;  a  preventive  against  folly  and 
absurdity :    and    we   should   soon   allow,   that   there   could   be 
nothing  essentially   evil   in    that   which  makes  men  mutually 
attract  each  other;  which  gives  a  strong  impression  of  impro 
priety  ;  and  which  makes  the  powerful  sentiment  of  shame  act 
in  support  of  decency  and  good  sense. 

12.  Those  however  who  wish  to  suppress  ridicule  allege 
evils  which  it  has  in  fact  occasioned.  There  seems  no  doubt 
that  it  has  occasioned  evils ;  but  the  question  is,  whether  those 
evils  arise  out  of  ridicule  itself,  or  only  out  of  abuses  of 
ridicule6  ?  In  general  it  must  be  allowed,  that  the  abuses 
of  any  faculty  do  not  justify  the  suppressing  of  it:  if  that 
were  the  case,  all  our  faculties  must  be  suppressed ;  for  they 
are  all  made  so  as  to  be  liable  to  abuse — (in  that  consists  our 
probation) — and  they  all  are  abused  frequently.  Reason, 
imagination — every  passion,  appetite,  sentiment — comes  under 
this  remark.  When  laws  are  made  they  are  abused,  but  they 
are  not  therefore  repealed.  When  liberty  is  given  it  is  abused, 
but  not  on  that  account  wholly  taken  away,  though  sometimes 
regulated  in  different  degrees. 

We  may,  therefore,  enumerate  some  abuses  of  ridicule. 
It  will  not  follow,  from  the  enumeration,  that  ridicule  is  to  be 
entirely  suppressed;  but  only,  that  those  abuses  are  to  be 
considered,  and  prevented  as  much  as  possible.  Till  ridicule 

449  is  permitted  we  cannot  make  experiments  upon  it,  nor  therefore 
can  we  get  to  understand  it.      We  -may  make  the  enumeration 
serve  as  a  sort  of  recapitulation.      If  ridicule  is  thrown  upon 
any    subject,  and  those  to   whom  it  is  addressed  accept  and 
acquiesce  in  it  without  examination  by  serious  argument,  such 
acquiescence  is  an  abuse. 

6  In  the  Heads  of  Lectures  there  is   ;  printed  instead  of  abuses  of  ridicule,  in 
here    an    error;    abuses   of   religion   is   j  one  edition. 


320  RIDICULE    IN    IlELIGION.  [II.  iv.   13. 

If  faults  which,  in  a  well-regulated  mind,  would  excite  I. 
abhorrence  or  detestation,  are  ridiculed,  there  ridicule  is  mis 
applied.  Ridicule  may  always  be  said  to  be  abused,  when 
it  is  not  used  with  a  view  to  promoting  truth  or  virtue :  one 
might  add,  that  such  view,  or  purpose,  should  not  be  design 
edly  concealed ;  and  farther,  that  we  can  scarce  conceive  any 
one  to  have  this  view  who  ridicules  a  subject  at  random, 
before  he  understands  much  of  it.  As  ridicule  is  to  examine 
serious  argument,  and  serious  argument  ridicule,  it  may  be 
considered  as  an  abuse,  when  ridicule  is  applied  to  answer 
ridicule; — a  thing  which  generally  appears  to  be  ineffectual 
as  to  all  useful  purposes.  To  neglect,  or  refuse  to  apply,  any 
good  remedy,  may,  in  some  sense,  be  called  making  a  wrong 
use  of  that  remedy.  In  this  sense,  those  whom  we  have 
called  philosophers  abuse  ridicule  (abuse  at  least  the  goodness 
of  the  Creator)  when  they  neglect  or  refuse  to  apply  it.  One 
of  the  principal  and  most  striking  abuses  of  ridicule  is,  when 
it  is  used  at  wrong  times  and  seasons,  so  as  to  hurt  the  prin 
ciples  of  those  in  particular  to  whom  it  is  addressed :  as  when 
it  makes  the  parent  contemptible  to  the  child,  the  instructor 
to  the  pupil,  the  magistrate  to  the  subject,  the  master  to  the 
servant,  and  so  on ;  or  when  it  occasions  levity,  or  negligence, 
about  the  only  obligations  of  religion,  or  morality,  whose  force 
is  acknowledged.  Allied  to  this  will  be  that  abuse  which 
takes  place  when  ridicule  only  works  by  hints  and  insinua 
tions  ;  seeming  tender  about  exposing,  and  affecting  decency,  4-50 
and  yet  making  the  object  appear  more  ridiculous  by  the  use 
of  reserve.  There  seems  none  of  these  abuses  which  might 
not  be  remedied  ;  and,  if  that  were  the  case  after  a  perfect 
enumeration,  we  might  say,  that  all  the  evils  of  ridicule  are 
capable  of  being  prevented  or  removed1. 

13.  Perhaps  the  most  effectual  method  of  removing  the 
evils  of  ridicule  would  be,  for  men  of  parts  and  taste,  virtuous 
at  the  same  time  and  religious,  to  give  specimens  of  the  right 


1  These  abuses  might  be  thus  briefly 
enumerated ;  and  in  a  different  order : 
1.  Neglecting  the  instrument  committed 
to  man  by  Providence.  2.  Using  ridi 
cule  when  an  action  ought  to  be  detested. 

3.  Using  ridicule  in  return  for  ridicule. 

4.  Using  it  for  any  ends  but  promoting 
truth  and  virtue;  which  would  include 
using  it  at  random.    Here  too  our  motive 
should  be  professed  and  risible.     5.  Af 


fecting  reserve  a"nd  decency,  so  as  to 
make  a  partial  exposure  of  a  fault.  (\ 
Using  ridicule  unseasonably ;  so  as  to 
hurt  particularly  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed.  7.  In  the  above,  a  man  is 
active :  when  he  is  passive,  or  receives 
ridicule,  it  is  an  abuse,  if  he  does  not 
give  it  a  serious  examination  ;  which  in 
cludes  making  a  partial  exposure  to  be 
total. 


II.  iv.  13.]  RIDICULE    I\T    RELIGION.  321 

I.  sort  of  it;  in  religious  subjects,  or  others;  though  some  care 
might  moreover  be  requisite,  to  have  them  rightly  received 
and  applied.  We  have  not  many  instances  of  the  sort  here 
supposed.  Addisorfs  humour  is  the  nearest  perfection  of  any 
I  know;  but  Swift  is  very  masterly.  Lucian  and  he  put  me 
in  mind  of  each  other,  in  their  easy  dryness ;  but  Lucian  runs 
into  the  abuse  of  undermining  the  principles  of  the  people. 
Eachard  is  well  worthy  of  mention.  Sterne  aims  to  ridicule 
false  science;  and,  indeed,  as  far  as  he  does  it  properly  and 
effectually,  he  is  a  supporter  of  truth :  which  observation 
applies  to  the  authors  of  the  Memoirs  of  Martinus  Scriblerus. 
Sterne  has  powers  of  ridicule,  but  I  believe  those  who  have 
read  Rabelais  think  Sterne  less  original  than  he  is  generally 
4.01  thought.  His  chief  services  to  virtue  and  religion  have  been 
in  those  parts  of  his  writings  which  are  not  humorous.  The 
story  of  Le  Fevre  has  great  merit ;  and  the  speech  to  the  fly, 
"  go  thy  way,*"  &c.  has,  I  believe,  saved  the  lives  of  many 
hundreds  of  animals.  Indeed,  he  has  drawn  a  character  of  a 
clergymen  who  attacks,  with  delicate  and  benevolent  ridicule, 
every  luxuriancy  of  truth  and  virtue.  The  fate  of  Yorick  was 
not  totally  unlike  that  of  Socrates:  delicate  ridicule  brought 
on  them  both  the  envy  and  enmity  of  the  coarse  and  vulgar, 
to  their  destruction. 

But  Sterne  makes  this  personage  wish  there  was  no  2such 
thing  as  a  polemic  divine;  and  he  introduces3  a  piece  of 
humour,  which  I~may  not  rightly  understand: — a  contest 
between  Gymnast  (yvjuLvacrr^  was  the  teacher  of  the  youths 
who  were  to  contend  in  the  Gymnasia)  and  Tripet,  in  the 
style  perhaps  of  ancient  chivalry  or  horsemanship ;  to  shew 
that  controversy  is  all  made  up  of  useless  contention  and  osten 
tatious  flourishes.  We  have  only  to  remark,  that  he  only 
ridicules  controversy  in  its  worst  state;  not  such  as  we  have 
conceived,  nor  such  as  we  believe  to  be  practicable. 

Bishop  Warburton  observes4,  as  has  been  before  men 
tioned,  that  whatever  good  Cervantes  and  Sutler  may  have 
done  by  writing  Don  Quixote  and  Hudibras,  they  have  done 
much  harm;  the  one  to  "real  honour,"  the  other  to  "sober 
piety."  Without  denying  the  fact,  we  may  ask  whether  they 
did  not  do  much  more  good  than  harm  upon  the  whole  ?  It  is 
a  common  thing,  when  a  person  has  received  benefit  in  sick- 

2  Vol.iv.(Edit.in8vols.)Chap.  xxviii.   i        4  Dedication   to   Freethinkers,  p.    18, 

3  Chap.  xxix.  j    »vo. 

VOL.  I.  21 


322  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  [II.  iv.   IS. 

ness  from  a  course  of  medicine,  to  say,  he  is  well,  but  he  is  I. 
weakened  by  the  discipline  which  he  has  been  obliged  to 
undergo :  but  this  is  not  always  thought  a  reason  against 
administering  the  same  remedies  again  on  similar  occasions.  452 
It  seems  the  condition  of  our  nature,  that  we  receive  evil  witli 
good ;  at  least  we  find  this  in  every  thing  at  present,  though 
it  does  seem  in  the  power  of  man  to  keep  diminishing  the 
evil,  without  limit.  Ridicule  is  often  found  arm  in  arm  with 
profane  levity  and  vicious  licentiousness.  Our  friend  gets 
connected  with  our  enemies  ;  but  we  are  not,  for  that  reason, 
to  attack  the  group  promiscuously.  We  should  first  separate 
our  friend,  and  then  treat  our  enemies  as  the  case  may  require. 
Whatever  incidental  evil  may  have  arisen  from  the  comic  work 
of  Cervantes,  so  judicious  a  writer  as  the  author  of  the  Tatler 
has  since  said,  that  duelling  should  be  attacked  with  ridicule 
first,  before  it  is  attacked  with  grave  reasoning ;  and  I  think 
Fielding  has  shewn,  by  his  Colonel  Bath,  the  justness  of  the 
remark. 

We  must  not  quite  pass  over  Mr.  Foote.  He  has  a  festi 
vity  which  is  very  enlivening,  and  he  knew  prevailing  manners 
so  well  as  to  ridicule  them  very  happily  ;  but  he  was  too 
ignorant^  of  religion  to  ridicule  even  its  abuses  with  pro 
priety.  When  he  ridicules  abuses  of  the  scriptural  doctrines 
concerning  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  shock  which 
he  gives  is  too  strong.  He  seems  not  only  to  want  theological 
knowledge,  but  knowledge  of  the  human  mind;  or  attention  in 
entering  into  the  feelings  of  rational  Christians.  Still,  I  would 
not  fly  from  his  ridicule;  I  would  examine  it  gravely,  in  order 
to  form  an  useful  judgment  from  it;  as  a  medical  person 
would  examine  some  things  disgusting  in  their  nature.  I  can 
conceive  the  very  abuses  which  he  ridicules,  to  be  ridiculed 
by  Addison,  or  others,  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  hurt  my 
feelings.  EachardV  account  of  Parson  Slipstocking  relates  i.~.'} 
to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  well  as  Footers  ridicule, 
but  it  does  not  give  me  a  very  painful  shock3. 

I    conclude   this   account  of  authors  with   the  mention  of 

1  Sect.  12.     No  one  who  is  ignorant  of  I    ments  are  expressed  as  ridiculous,  which 
the  rules  of  good  breeding,  can  ridicule       really  every  honest  man  feels.    I  think 


false  politeness  with  effect. 
2  Contempt  of  the  Clergy. 
•''  3Ir.  Sheridan's  ./oxt'ji/t  Surfncc,  in 


this  is  the  case;  but  the  play  has  not 
been  published,  and  I  have  only  seen  it 
once,  and  that  in  the  year  1777-  Ridicule 
the  School  for  Scandal,  is,  in  my  judg-  i  is,  in  this  play,  very  useful  in  exposing 
ment,  an  hurtful  piece  of  humour  :  senti-  i  censoriousness  pretending  to  candour. 


II.  iv.  14.]  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  323 

I.  one  or  two  now  living :  Madame  De  Sillery-Brulart  (late 
Madame  de  Genlis)  and  Mons.  Berquin.  In  their  pleasing, 
moral,  affecting  dramas4,  I  find  a  mixture  of  comic  and  ethic, 
which  is  peculiarly  powerful :  it  has,  from  many  readers,  drawn 
tears  of  the  most  delicious  kind.  I  wish  some  student  in  the 
higher  parts  of  criticism  (which  include  the  emotions  of  the 
mind,)  would  examine  this  mixture.  One  may  see  that  the 
comic  makes  the  virtue  so  unaffected  and  unpretending  as 
greatly  to  heighten  the  merit  and  the  effect  of  it.  But  the 
more  it  was  examined,  the  more  clearly  would  the  use  and 
excellence  of  ridicule  appear,  when  rightly  refined  and  judici 
ously  applied. 

14.  In  private  life  I  think  I  have  known  ridicule  employ 
ed  much  as  I  should  wish  it  to  be  in  controversy ;  not  amongst 
the  licentious,  but  amongst  the  most  virtuous  and  religious 
persons  I  ever  had  the  happiness  to  converse  with  :  employed 
with  cheerfulness  and  kindness,  with  frankness,  but  with  deli- 
454  cacy  and  respect,  mutually  offered  and  received.  Such  ridicule 
is  rather  flattering  than  wounding,  as  it  implies  great  candour 
and  sweetness  in  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed. 

Men  are  often  thought  to  be  more  offended  by  raillery 
than  they  really  are.  They  shew  some  confusion,  and  that 
is  thought  to  be  merely  anger,  when  really  it  springs  from 
various  causes.  Sometimes  even  the  fear  of  seeming  offended 
will  occasion  it ;  sometimes,  mortification  at  discovering  an 
unknown  fault,  or  vexation  at  the  misrepresentations  of  the 
world.  This  kind  of  confusion  often  interrupts  mutual  raillery, 
when  the  person  who  is  confused  would,  after  a  very  short 
interval,  shew  an  earnest  desire  to  continue  it. 

I  fear  Dr.  Brown,  who  is  commended  by  Bishop  War- 
burton5  for  writing  well  upon  ridicule,  wanted  a  little  of  its 
help  himself  towards  the  latter  part  of  his  life.  Some  nego 
tiation  about  his  furnishing  a  set  of  laws  for  Russia,  with 
other  causes,  made  him,  if  I  remember  right,  run  into  an 
excess  of  seriousness.  I  fear  he  became  seriously  vain  and 
proud ;  I  fear, — but  I  will  only  add,  that  ridicule  well  applied, 
and  applied  in  time,  might  have  been  his  best  medicine.  Some 


4  Particularly  those  contained  in  the 
4th  vol.  of  the  Theatre  of  Education; 
and  the  larger  pieces  in  L'Ami  des 
Enf'ans. 


writings,  but  I  have  seen  nothing  so 
efficacious.  The  humour  of  sailors  in 
the  midst  of  danger  makes  something  of 
the  same  sort  of  mixture ;  but  the  com 


I  have  met  with  instances  of  the  same       pound  is  less  retincd. 
kind  of  mixture  now  and  then  in  other  I       •  ])ed.  to  Freethinkers,  page  20,  8vo. 

01 o 


324 


RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION. 


[II.  iv.  15. 


of  the  clergy  who  live  retired,  are  apt  also,  I  fear,  to  become  I. 
too  serious.  The  moderate  use  of  delicate  and  respectful  ridicule 
might,  in  some  cases,  take  off  that  seeming  moroseness,  that 
apparent  rancour,  with  which  they  are  sometimes  apt  to  speak 
of  the  faults  of  their  neighbours ;  meaning  only  honest  indig 
nation  ;  and  perhaps  be  a  means,  in  other  instances,  of  prevent 
ing  the  contrary  extreme ;  for  he  who  prevents  one  extreme 
often  prevents  another.  Socrates  must  have  been  very  pleas 
ing  in  private  life,  and  his  wit  must  have  had  a  great  tendency 
to  check  such  excesses  as  these.  I  should  be  curious  to  know 
whether  Sterne  thought  of  Socrates  in  drawing  Yorick,  or  455 
Fielding  in  drawing1  Dr.  Harrison?  Some  of  the  greatest 
men  I  have  ever  heard  converse,  have  excelled  in  delicate 
and  well-bred  ridicule2. 

15.  The  Scriptures  have,  I  think,  been  considered  by 
some  as  adverse  to  the  use  of  ridicule.  If  they  forbad  the  use 
of  it,  we  must  conclude  ourselves  mistaken  in  our  reasoning  ; 
but  that  does  not  appear  to  be  the  case.  All  Scripture  seems 
to  be  occasional,  and  the  occasions  on  which  the  different 
parts  were  written  are  serious ;  so  that  men  might  have  written 
gravely  upon  them,  who,  in  common  discourse,  did  not  dis 
card  humour  entirely.  It  has  been  said3,  that  Jesus  never 
was  known  to  laugh.  It  may  be  so:  extensive  views,  business, 
sufferings,  compassion,  might  possibly  prevent  it.  At  the 
marriage  at  Cana,  he  must  have  been  amidst  festive  conver 
sation  ;  and  he  miraculously  provided  wine,  which  maketh 
glad  the  heart  of  man.  Though  he  was  sometimes  indignant 
at  hypocrisy,  he  says  of  it  what  may  be  taken  in  a  ludicrous 
light.  The  gnat1  and  the  camel  were  both  unclean  animals 
amongst  the  Jews ;  the  swallowing  of  the  latter  was  exaggera 
tion,  and  of  a  kinoVnot  very  serious  :  the  picture  of  hypocrites 
scrupulously  filtering,  lest  they  should  be  so  unfortunate  as 
to  swallow  an  unclean  insect,  and  then  gobbling  down  a  great 
unclean  beast,  has  not  much  gravity  in  it ;  and  what  is  repre 
sented  by  it,  namely,  great  nicety  in  some  things,  and  great  456 
want  of  nicety  in  others,  makes  a  contrast  of  itself,  whicii 
might  excite  some  feeling  of  ridicule.  Our  Saviour,  in  his 


1  In  Amelia. 

-  Mr.  Charles  Townshcnd,  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer;  Lord  North,  when 
iirst  minister;  Sir  George  Savile,  Dr. 
Balguy,  Mr.  Gray,  Mr.  Mason,  Dr.  l',i- 
ley;  not  to  venture  upon  a  greater  number 


of  instances ;  though  I  have  some  in  my 
mind's  eye,  equally  apt,  if  not  equally 
known. 

;|  In  the  Spectator,  I  think ;  or  some 
other  work  of  great  excellence. 

4  Matt,  xxiii.  24. 


II.  iv.    16.]  RIDICULE    IN    RELIGION.  325 

I.  teaching,  did  not  want  to  make  slight  and  superficial  impres 
sions;  however,  he  says  nothing  against  the  use  of  ridicule, 
as  we  wish  it  to  be  used.  Nor  do  his  Apostles.  l^vTpaweXia 
is  forbidden5;  but  it  was  probably  low  buffoonery  and  ob 
scenity,  or  what  we  call  double  double  entendre.  Let  any 
one  read  the  context,  and  Parkhurst's  account  of  eurjoavreXm, 
and  Locke's  note  on  7rAeoi/e£m :  they  both  refer  to  Hammond, 
who  is  learned  and  judicious  upon  the  subject.  Christians 
are  repeatedly  told  that  they  are  to  rejoice  evermore,  that  is 
habitually;  an  habitual  cheerfulness  cannot  well  be  conceived, 
without  some  mixture  of  comic  pleasantry ;  it  must  be  fre 
quently  familiar.  The  righteous  are  to  be  glad  and  rejoice 
in  the  Lord  ;  and  the  true6  of  heart  to  be  joyful.  This,  indeed, 
is  from  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  Old  Testament  there 
are  several  passages  about  idolatry,  which  contain  humour ; 
and  their  being  controversial,  as  it  were,  makes  them  the  more 
to  our  purpose.  We  might  instance  in  7 Elijah's  mocking  the 
priests  of  Baal,  and  several  passages8  of  Isaiah. 

As  to  Lord  Shaftesbwyf**  saying  that  the  Scriptures  are 
humorous,  I  only  look  upon  that  as  his  method  of  treating 
them  with  derision. 

The  Church  of  England  cannot  be  supposed  to  look  upon 
ridicule  as  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  because  she  uses  it  with 
regard  to  the  superstitions  of  the  Church  of  Rome10. 
4.57  16.  We  need  be  the  less  discouraged  about  using  ridicule; 
as  it  appears,  I  think,  pretty  plain,  that  all  use  it  when  they 
are  able.  Even  those  writers  who  condemn  the  use  of  it  in 
others  use  it  themselves.  I  have  always  conceived  that  Mr. 
John  Wesley  would  be  shocked  at  any  levity  concerning 
theological  subjects,  (though,  to  say  the  truth,  I  am  not 
acquainted  with  any  part  of  his  works  in  which  he  directly 
says  so ;  I  am  not  well  read  in  his  works ;) — but  I  once  heard 
him  preach  concerning  demoniacs  a  discourse,  the  controver 
sial  part  of  which  was  humorous ;  that  is,  contained  comic 
strictures  of  a  refined  and  ingenious  sort  upon  his  adversaries. 
And  I  am  told,  from  good  authority,  that  he  has  great  comic 
powers11.  But  Bishop  Warburton  is  more  to  our  purpose, 

•r>  Ephes.  v.  4.      6  Psal.  xxxii.  11  or  12.  j  10  See  Homily  on  good  works,  Part  3d, 

7  1  Kings  xviii.  27.  j  pp.  43  and  45,  8vo. 

8  Isaiah  XLIV.  1(5,  17.  n  Since  this  was    written  Mr.   John 
0  Characteristics,  vol.  in.  Miscellany  j  Wesley  is  dead,  but  that  does  not  seem 

II.  Chap.  iii.  or  Leland's  View,  p.  57,       to  make  the  instance  less  apt. 
4th  Edit. 


326  RIDICULE    IX    IlELIGION.  [II.  iv.  1?. 

as  we  have  seen  him  contending  against  the  use  of  ridicule.  I. 
I  will  select  a  few  passages  from  that  very  Dedication  to  the 
Freethinkers,  in  which  we  have  already  found  his  arguments. 
He  compares1  the  Freethinkers  to  a  Sir  Martin,  in  a  comedy 
of  Dryden's,  on  account  of  their  continuing,  through  imitation 
and  affectation,  needlessly  to  complain  of  want  of  liberty2 — 
"all  the  rest,  says  he,  is  merely  Sir  Martin;  it  is  continuing 
to  fumble  at  the  lute,  though  the  music  has  been  long  over." 
He  commends  a  fine  piece  of  controversial  irony,  written 
against  Freethinkers3.  He  compares  the  mixture  of  serious 
ness  and  ridicule  found  in  their  writings,  to  the  character  of 
Bayes's  actor  in  the  Rehearsal4.  He  compares  ridicule  in 
controversy  to  chewed  bullets5;  and  to  Marius's  darts0:  indeed, 
he  owns  that  the  "disposition  towards  unseasonable  mirth 
drives  all  parties  upon  being  witty,  where  they  can,  as  being  458 
conscious  of  its  powerful  operation  in  controversy7. 

17.  The  result  of  what  has  been  said  on  the  subject  of 
ridicule  seems  to  be  this:  ridicule  ought  to  be  studied;  ex 
perimentally,  as  far  as  possible :  that  is,  its  abuses,  and  the  evils 
arising  from  them,  should  be  marked  and  defined ;  and  its 
uses  brought  to  light,  and  made  clear  and  evident.  In  speci 
fying  its  abuses  and  mischiefs,  we  should  condemn  all  vicious 
levity,  all  incautious  allusion,  or  painting,  which  could  occa 
sion  scandal  to  the  well-meaning,  or  loosen  principles  not 
likely  to  have  others  immediately  substituted  in  their  room  ; 
though  we  should  own,  that  more  hazard  might  safely  be  run 
than  would  at  first  be  imagined. 

In  settling  the  uses  of  ridicule,  we  should  determine  that 
it  might  be  the  means  of  shewing  to  ourselves  and  our  friends 
those  faults  which  most  impeded  our  advancement  in  useful 
knowledge,  virtue,  and  religion.  It  might  hinder  us  from 
being  pedantic,  selfsatisfied,  proud,  hypocritical;  or  from 
running  into  fanatacism  or  superstition.  And,  if  it  were  cul 
tivated  by  men  of  abilities  and  talents,  of  polished  minds  and 
amiable  dispositions,  it  might,  when  mixed  with  worthy  and 
pious  sentiments,  give  such  a  grace  and  beauty  to  virtue  and 
religion,  as  would  make  them  universally  loved  and  desired. 

1  P.  4.  8vo.         2  Ibid.        3  P.  5.       4  P.  8.        5  P.  22.        e  p.  19.        7  ibid. 


II.  V.].]  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY  327 

I. 

459  CHAPTER    V. 

CANONS     OF     CONTROVERSY 

HAVING  examined  the  nature  of  controversy,  and  the  good 
and  bad  qualities  of  those  who  engage  in  carrying  it  on,  and 
having  spoken  pretty  largely  of  the  use  and  abuse  of  ridicule,  I 
come  now  to  mention,  as  the  result  of  our  disquisitions,  some 
rules  or  Laws  of  Controversy,  to  which  recourse  may  be  had, 
when  any  doubts  arise  concerning  the  rectitude  of  any  manner 
of  disputing. 

When  laws  are  proposed,  it  is  natural  to  ask,  how  are  they 
to  be  enforced?  where  do  you  find  an  authority  or  power  to 
carry  them  into  execution  ?  I  fear  we  have  nothing  to  trust  to, 
in  fact,  but  the  apprehensions  which  most  men  have  of  going 
against  the  general  sense  of  reputable  and  judicious  people. 
We  know,  that,  in  what  are  called  affairs  of  honour,  nay,  in 
public  as  well  as  in  private  war,  the  ignominy  arising  from 
general  blame  and  contempt  acts  very  forcibly  ;  why  might 
we  not  hope  for  the  same  kind  of  obedience  and  submission,  if 
we  could  get  laws  of  controversy  as  well  established  as  laws  of 
honour  already  are  ?  It  would  contribute  something  to  this  de 
sirable  end,  if  laws  were  only  defined  and  published. 

But  it  might  assist  our  imagination ,  and  give  a  greater  dig 
nity  and  consequence  to  each  law,  if  we  conceived  some  great 
synod  which  should  recognize  our  laws,  and  pronounce  sen 
tence  on  such  as  should  violate  them.  Louis  XIV.  of  France 
had  some  idea  of  forming  a  great  council  by  delegates  from 
460  different  states,  in  order  to  settle  and  enforce  the  rights  of 
nations :  why  may  not  we  imagine  a  council  formed  by  dele 
gates  from  different  national  churches?  Were  such  a  council 
actually  to  meet,  their  laws  would  probably  be  called  canons ; 
we  will  therefore  use  that  term.  Our  council  might  be  both 
legislative  and  judicial:  its  punishments  might  be  disgrace, 
expunging  blamable  expressions,  &c.  The  very  idea  of  such  a 
council  might  have  its  use :  it  would  occasion  the  greater  inte 
rest,  and  greater  distinctness,  when  it  was  said,  that  A  had 
broken  the  4th  Canon,  B  the  6th,  and  so  forth :  and  those  might 
submit  to  a  rule  or  law  made  beforehand,  who  would  not  sub 
mit  to  an  observation  made  in  their  own  particular  case. 

Canon  1.  Let  no  one  be  allowed  to  take  any  part  in  con 
troversy  who  will  not  at  all  times  be  ready  to  proclaim,  when 


328  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  [II.  V.  2,  3. 

called  upon,  "  I  may  be  in  an  error  ,•"  or  even  to  wear  some-  I. 
thing  on  which  these  words  should  be  inscribed.  In  the  heat 
of  controversy  men  forget  the  numberless  sources  of  error  which 
are  really  in  every  controverted  subject,  especially  in  theology1 
and  metaphysics.  Hence  presumption,  confidence,  arrogant 
language ;  all  which  greatly  obstruct  the  clearing  up  of  truth. 
Any  expedient  to  set  these  in  their  true  light,  and  make  men 
sensible  of  the  folly  of  them,  must  be  very  serviceable;  and 
it  seems  scarcely  possible  for  men  to  persist  in  them,  who  ac 
knowledged,  in  a  solemn  manner,  that  they  were  continually 
liable  to  error. 

To  obviate  mistakes,  we  will  just  observe,  that  there  may 
be  cases  in  which  the  opposite  language  may  be  held.  A  priest 
may  say  to  one  of  his  own  catechumens,  I  am  not  to  be  con 
sidered  by  you  as  liable  to  error ;  that  is,  '  you  are  most  likely 
to  keep  free  from  error,  if,  for  the  present,  you  follow  my  46 1 
advice  and  judgment.'  But  here  the  case  is  very  different 
from  that  which  is  supposed,  when  we  speak  of  controversy. 
This  is  the  case  of  one  of  the  people  receiving  his  opinions 
from  a  philosopher ;  but  in  controversy,  contending  parties 
are  equally  philosophers. 

Canon  2.  All  expressions  of  selfsufficiency  shall  bring 
disgrace  on  him  who  uses  them.  He  uses  such  expressions 
who  calls  his  own  cause  the  cause  of  God,  and  his  own  in 
terpretation  the  word  of  God ;  who  insults  others,  and  de 
means  himself  as  if  he  acted  upon  demonstration,  instead  of 
probability.  Selfsufficient  expressions  are  hurtful,  as  they 
tend  to  prevent  the  chief  end  of  controversy,  which  is,  the 
ascertaining  of  truth,  by  the  removal  of  all  that  error  which 
is  apt  to  get  intermixed  with  it.  They  have  also  some  mis 
chiefs  in  common  with  some  other  faults. 

Should  any  one  think  this  second  canon  too  nearly  allied 
to  the  first,  let  him  reflect,  that  the  faults  implied  in  them 
are  distinct,  and  would  require  distinct  charges.  A  person 
may  possibly  own  himself  fallible,  in  form,  and  yet  may  use 
selfsufficient  expressions;  or  he  may  use  them  when  he  has 
never  been  called  upon  to  declare  himself  fallible. 

Canon  3.  All  expressions,  which  are  judged  unmeaning 
as  to  the  matter  in  dispute,  shall  be  expunged  by  authority, 
with  disgrace  to  him  who  uses  them. 

o 

All  expressions  are  unmeaning  which  contain   no  part  of 

1  Dr.  Balguy,  Charge  V.  as  before. 


II.  V.  4,  5.]  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  329 

I.  an  argument ;  which  are  declamatory ;  which  one  side  has 
as  much  right  to  use  as  the  other.  And  those  might  be 
added  which  are  used  as  technical,  pedantic,  ostentatious, 
or  are  borrowed  from  systems  not  understood",  or  which,  in 
any  way,  miss  the  question. 

462  All  these  throw  a  mist  over  the  truth,  and  hinder  it  from 
being  clearly  discerned.      They   set  the  ideas  which  ought   to 
be  compared   at  a   distance   from   each    other ;    and  interpose 
objects   which  prevent  their  agreement3  or  disagreement  from 
appearing  distinctly. 

Canon  4.  Whoever  uses  personal  reflections  in  contro 
versy  shall  be  deemed  an  enemy  to  truth.  What  these  are, 
needs  no  explanation.  Archbishop  Sharp  says,  "  Mens4  per 
sons  are  sacred  things."  And  what  if  A  were  a  dull  man, 
B  a  pert  forward  man,  C  a  sot,  D  an  hypocrite,  and  so  on  ? 
all  men  have  faults,  and  men  who  have  different  faults  have 
written  truths,  and  men  with  different  good  qualities  have 
written  falsehoods.  So  that  personal  reflections,  though  found 
ed  in  truth,  help  nothing  forward.  In  effect,  they  greatly 
retard  and  obstruct  mental  improvement.  They  prevent  even 
just  reasoning  from  being  accepted  by  common  men;  and 
when  any  one  is  so  uncommonly  candid  as  to  examine  argu 
ments  in  which  he  is  abused,  he  must  meet  with  difficulties 
and  hinderances ;  he  must  have  a  shock  of  resentment  and 
indignation  to  overcome,  which  cannot  but  require  time  and 
attention,  and  so  divert  his  attention  from  the  argument. 

How  much  better  than  using  personal  abuse  would  it  be 
for  a  man  to  say  to  his  adversary,  '  you  think  this  way,  I  think 
that ;  there  is  no  need  for  us  to  feel  the  least  personal  ill  will 
to  each  other ;  let  us,  as  friends,  go  hand  in  hand,  and  see 
if  we  cannot  find  out  what  it  is  that  occasions  our  difference 
of  opinion.' 

Canon  5.  Let  no  one  accuse  his  adversary  of  indirect 
motives. 

463  It  is  not  unfrequent  in  controversy  for   men  to  speak  as 
if  an  adversary  did  not  really  believe  what  he  said ;  as  if  he 
used  arguments,  not  from  opinion,  but  because  it  served  some 
purpose  of  interest — because  it  supported  some  cause  in  which 
he  was  joined.      To  speak  thus  is,  in  reality,   to  make  a  per 
sonal  reflection,  but  it  seems  proper  to  observe  separately,  that 

2  See  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  11)3.  3  Locke  iv.  1,  2. 

4  Sermons,  vol.  i.  Serm.  1.  Sthly. 


330  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  [II.  V.  6. 

arguments  are  to  be  answered  equally,  whether  he  who  offers  I. 
them  is  sincere  or  not :  nay,  if  we  knew  him  to  be  insincere, 
we  must  answer  them.  We  cannot  do  so  the  less,  when  we 
reflect  that  we  have  no  way  of  knowing  whether  he  really  be 
sincere  or  not.  To  inquire  into  his  motives  then  is  useless ; 
to  ascribe  indirect  ones  to  him,  is  worse  than  useless — it  is 
hurtful. 

Sometimes,  however,  the  case  is  such,  that  it  seems  as  if 
we  were  not  bound  to  take  men  in  the  literal  sense,  when  they 
profess  their  motives  for  writing.  They  make  pretences  which, 
to  a  private  friend,  they  would  undoubtedly  own  are  not  to 
be  understood  literally.  These  are  sometimes  intended  to 
ward  off  danger,  or  prevent  legal  prosecution.  Of  this  sort 
is  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Hume's  Essay  on  Miracles ;  Lord 
Shaftesbury's  account  of  the  pleasantry  of  the  Scriptures, 
referred  to  before1.  I  used  to  think  Woolston's  profession 
a  strong  instance  of  this ;  but,  from  farther  consideration  of 
his  life  and  character2,  I  doubt  whether  it  is:  I  rather  think 
it  is  not :  which  may  be  a  warning  (to  me  at  least)  against 
judging  hastily  in  such  matters.  In  action  we  must  follow 
probability.  We  must  not,  in  defending  ourselves,  run  into 
such  excess  of  candour  as  to  think  men  better  than  they  are ; 
but  whatever  they  are,  when  we  come  to  contend  with  them, 
we  must  observe  and  obey  the  laws  of  contention. 

Canon  6.     They  are  to  be  censured  who  charge  the  con-  4(54 
sequences  of  doctrines  upon  those  who  only  hold  the  doctrines 
themselves. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  common  faults  of  controversy  ;  but 
though  the  consequences  are  rightly  drawn,  it  is  unjust  to 
take  for  granted  that  our  adversaries  hold  them3.  How  does 
it  appear  that  they  ever  drew  any  consequences?  Perhaps 
they  might  rather  give  up  the  original  doctrine  than  embrace 
that  which  has  been  deduced  from  it.  The  deduction  might 
to  them  disprove  the  doctrine:  and  the  injustice  is  still  greater 
if  the  consequences  are  not  rightly  deduced ;  which  may 
frequently  be  the  case.  Moreover,  the  consequences  charged 
are  generally  of  a  practical  nature,  and  they  are  said  to  be 
held  when  they  really  are  not.  In  this  way,  the  fault  gets  to 
be  an  imputation  of  vice;  and  therefore  provokes  (at  the  same 
time  that  it  perplexes)  in  the  manner  of  a  personal  reflection. 

1  Chap.  iv.  sect.  15.  2  See  I.  xvi.  7. 

3  See  Abp.  Sharp,  vol.  i.  Serm.  1.  4thly. 


II.   V.   7,  8.]  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  331 

I.  Men  are  led  into  this  imputing  of  consequences,  by  reason 
ing  against  their  adversaries  in  the  way  of  the  reductio  ad 
absurdum*.  If  from  any  proposition  absurd  propositions 
follow,  it  is  rightly  concluded  that  the  original  proposition 
is  false ;  but  it  cannot  be  rightly  concluded  that  the  adver 
saries  maintain  those  absurd  propositions ;  that  is  a  question 
only  of  fact.  The  5Manicheans  held  that  the  Gospels  were 
not  written  by  apostles,  or  even  by  apostolic  men  :  to  disprove 
this  opinion,  it  has  been  urged,  if  so,  the  Gospels  must  be 
of  no  validity ;  which  is  an  absurd  thing  for  any  set  of 
Christians  to  maintain.  The  reasoning  seems  right ;  but  it 
seems  equally  right  to  say,  that  "  if  that  be  the  consequence 
465  of  their  principle,  they  did  not  see  it."  They  reasoned  ill ; 
but  still  they  did  not  maintain,  or  mean  to  maintain,  that  the 
Gospels  were  of  no  authority. 

Canon  7-  It  is  unlawful  to  refer  any  saying  of  an  adver 
sary  to  a  party. 

This  is  done  when  it  is  said — this  is  downright  Popish 
superstition,  Scotch  philosophy,  Irish  blundering ;  these  are 
rank  Tory  principles,  fine  high-church  doctrines. 

That  this  is  wrong  appears  from  hence :  it  scarce  ever 
happens  that  when  an  opinion  is  referred  to  a  party,  it  is  not 
first  distorted,  stretched,  in  short,  changed,  in  order  to  make 
it  fit  the  place  where  it  is  to  be  put.  Or  if,  at  any  time, 
the  opinion  is  not  changed,  it  gets  to  be  differently  esteemed. 
If  you  see  a  person  for  the  first  time  in  bad  company,  you 
have  a  very  different  idea  of  him  from  what  you  would  have 
if  you  had  seen  him  in  good  company  ;  thus  the  judgment 
gets  biassed  by  prejudice,  and  free  and  candid  inquiry  is 
prevented.  Throwing  odium  upon  any  person  has,  moreover, 
the  effect  of  provoking  ;  which  obstructs  the  investigation  of 
truth,  in  the  manner  before  fi described. 

Canon  8.  Whoever  shall  be  convicted  of  the  misappli 
cation  of  ridicule  in  controversy  shall  be  censured,  according 
to  the  particular  circumstances  of  his  case. 

The  abuses  of  ridicule  having  been  very  lately  enumerated, 
I  will  give  no  description  of  them  here.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
that,  as  men  will  bear  more  freedom  of  ridicule  at  some  times 
than  at  others,  and  ridicule  will  be  more  refined  at  one  time 
than  another,  there  should  be  conceived  a  separate  set  of  rules 

4  Chap.  ii.  sect.  13.  5  See  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  in.  pp.  519,  520. 

6  Sect.  4. 


332  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  [II.  V.  9,  10. 

relating  to  ridicule,   to  be  changed  from  time  to  time.     The    I. 
general  principles,  on  which  they  should  be  founded,  are,  not  466 
to  debase  or  corrupt   the  minds  of  the  people ;   and   to  apply 
ridicule  in  such  a  manner  as  to  rouse  men  from  their  prejudices 
and  faults,  and  set  them  on  thinking  for  themselves ;   and,  at 
the  same  time,  make  them  open  to  the  advice  of  those  who  are 
best  qualified   to  think  for  them. 

9.  We  will  not  proceed  any  farther  in  forming  canons  of 
controversy ;   that  would  look  as  if  we  really  meant  to  compile 
a  complete  set ;   whereas,  our  intention  is  rather  to  suggest  an 
idea,  than  to  execute  a  plan.     To  make  an  useful  code  of  laws 
many  counsellors  seem  required,  and  an  exact   knowledge  of 
the  state  of  things.      Even  when  these  are  to  be  had,  and  laws 
are  made,  evasions   and  new   modes  of  offending  will  require 
new  laws  continually. 

In  the  canons  which  we  have  proposed,  we  have  not  kept 
up  to  the  strict  notion  of  three  parties  in  controversy ;  we 
have  rather  conceived  two  parties,  for  the  sake  of  coming 
nearer  to  the  kind  of  controversy  which  actually  prevails :  to 
regulate  that  must  be  the  most  useful.  What  change  is  made 
by  transferring  controversy  from  three  to  two,  has  been  shewn 
in  the  second  chapter1.  Upon  the  whole,  it  seems  as  if  it 
would  be  best  for  controversialists,  when  there  are  but  two 
parties,  to  consider  themselves  merely  as  advocates,  making 
the  world  the  judge.  A  mixture  of  characters,  which  occa 
sions  a  confusion,  so  that  none  of  them  are  thoroughly  sup 
ported,  seems  to  do  more  harm  than  could  arise  from  advocates 
regarding  only  one  side  of  a  question,  professedly. 

10.  Nothing  can  so  well  prove  the  want   of  some  canons 
of  controversy,   as  giving  instances  of  the  violation  of  those 
which    we   have  proposed.      But   I    will    not    refer   you   to  a  4<$7 
multiplicity   of  authors ;    I    will  select   chiefly    from    one ;    an 
author  deservedly  admired  for  both   genius   and   learning:    I 
mean   the  author  of  the  Divine  Legation  of  Moses.      I  con 
ceive  this  author   to  be  as  able   an   advocate   as    ever    wrote. 

In  the  light  of  what  we  call  a  judge>  he  seems  somewhat  less 
estimable. 

Canon  1.      Against  denying  the  possibility  of  error. 

There  may  be  the  fewer  instances  of  violating  this  canon, 
as  it  is  levelled  chiefly  at  the  general  style  of  controversy. 

Bishop  Warburton  mentions2  an  author  who  has  evinced 
1  Sect.  15.  "  Div.  Leg.  vol.  iv.  p.  122. 


II.  V.   10.]  CANON'S    OF    CONTROVERSY.  333 

I.  a  truth  "beyond  the  possibility  of  a  reply."  It  would  have 
been  an  hard  matter  to  evince  any  truth  so  to  Bishop  War- 
burton:  his  fertility  in  reply  was  infinite. 

Canon  2.     Against  expressions  of  selj "sufficiency '. 

Bishop  Warburton3  says,  "  All  that  has  befallen  me  in 
defence  of  religion  is  only  die  railings  of  the  vile  and  im 
potent."  No  one  should  be  so  selfsufficient  as  to  call  himself 
a  defender  of  religion,  so  as  to  imply  that  other  Christians  are 
not  defenders  of  religion.  All  sects  of  Christians  defend  what 
they  think  true  religion. 

The  same  author  speaks4  of  his  adversary  as  opposing 
him,  "in  open  defiance  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Apostles, 
of  Moses  and  of  Jesus  Christ."  That  is,  the  Bishop  implies, 
that  he  had  these  undoubtedly  on  his  side ;  whereas,  the  end 
and  purpose  of  the  debate  was  to  determine  what  was  their 
real  meaning.  Both  sides  acknowledged  their  authority. 

Canon  3.     Against  unmeaning  expressions. 

Bishop  Warburton  uses  frequently  declamatory  expres- 
4(>8  sions,  which  his  opponents  have  an  equal  right  to  use. 
Ci  Something5  is  to  be  allowed  to  a  weak  cause."  The  Free 
thinkers  are  charged  with  "an  unnatural  mixture  of  scepticism6 
and  dogmatizing."  He  says  to  them,  "  You  have  done  your 
worst;  you  should  think  of  growing  better7."  An  expression 
equally  declamatory  is  this :  "  But  what  follows  is  such  un 
accountable  jargon8!"  Such  instances  as  these  might  easily 
be  multiplied.  It  is  as  easy  for  any  one  to  call  Bishop  War- 
burton  6  our  holy  prelate?  as  it  is  for  him  to  say,  '  our  learned 
doctor,  or  professor.'  It  is  as  obvious  for  one  side  as  the 
other  to  use  that  common  form,  "  If  you  have  given  your 
self  the  trouble  to  examine,  you  must  have  been  convinced." 

With  regard  to  missing  the  question,  see  Dr.  Jortin's  six 
Dissertations0. 

Unintelligible  expressions  are  exposed  in  the  Provincial 
Letters,  and  in  Voltaire's  History  of  Jansenism,  and  Quietism, 
in  his  Age  of  Louis  XIV.  See  also  Mosheim,  12th  Cent.  2, 
,'J,  15,  about  the  sense  in  which  an  incarnate  God  might  be 
at  the  same  time  the  offerer  and  the  oblation. 

Mosheim10  says,  that  "  the  opinions  of  Nestorius  and  the 
council  which  condemned  him,  were  the  same  in  effect."  To 


3  D.  L.  vol.  iv.  p.  134. 

4  Ibid.  vol.  iv.  p.  123,  note. 

5  Ded.  to  Freethinkers,  p.  7. 


6  Ibid.  p.  40.  7  Ibid.  p.  44. 

»  D.  L.  vol.  iv.  p.  137.    9  P.  r.i,,w. 

10  Mosh.  f>th  Cent.  2,  f»,  1). 


334  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  [II.  V.  10. 

bring  about  a  condemnation,  when  this  is  the  case,  the  expres-    I. 
sions  must  have  been  unmeaning. 

Canon  4.      Against  personal  reflections. 

We  do  but  find  too  many  instances  of  the  violation  of 
this  canon.  We  may  take  one  from  a  passage  already  referred 
to1.  "  All  that  has  befallen  me,  &c.  is  only  the  railings  of  the 
vile  and  impotent  :  and  all  that  is  likely  to  befall  him,  is  only 
the  ridicule  of  all  besides."  The  person  meant  by  "  him"  469 
was  the  very  respectable  Dr.  Rutherforth. 

Bishop  Warburton,  speaking2  of  a  writer  in  favour  of 
Christianity,  and  of  the  Freethinkers  as  his  accusers,  says, 
"  the  word  of  his  accusers  is  not  apt  to  go  very  far  with  me." 

Jonathan  Edwards,  speaking  'about  Hobbes,  says,  "this 
great  truth,  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  was  not  spoiled 
because  it  was  once  and  again  proclaimed  with  a  loud  voice 
by  the  devil."  He  is  here  defending  himself  against  the 
charge  of  being  an  Hobbist :  perhaps  he  might  not  mean  to 
abuse  Hobbes ;  but  only  to  argue  with  his  opponents  on  their 
own  suppositions. 

The  4  Socinian  controversy  affords  still  too  many  instances 
of  violations  of  this  canon.  See  Letter  to  Bishop  Hallifax, 
p.  29,  and  his  reply,  naming  Mr.  Blackall  as  the  writer. 

Mr.  Frend  is  adding  to  the  number. 

Canon  5.     Against  ascribing  indirect  views  to  adversaries. 

61  Such  insinuations"  (says  Warburton5  to  the  Freethink 
ers)  are  amongst  your  arts  of  controversy.11 

He  also  charges  them6  (whether  truly  or  not,  does  not  seem 
to  be  the  question)  with  the  "  low  cunning  of  pretending  still 
to  lie  under  restraints." 

But  there  is  so  capital  an  instance  in  Dr.  Priestley's 
History7  of  the  Corruptions  of  Christianity,  that  we  need 
produce  no  other.  It  is  too  long  to  transcribe,  but  it  makes 
the  concluding  remark  of  the  three  first  parts  of  his  work. 
I  will  read  it  to  you. 

"  You  industriously  keep  out  of  sight  all  the  limitations,"  470 
&c.     Blackall  to  Dr.  Hallifax,  p.  29. 

Canon  6.  Against  charging  the  consequences  of  doctrines 
upon  those  who  only  maintain  the  doctrines  themselves. 


1  ])iv.  Leg.  vol.  iv.  p.  134. 

2  Ded.  to  Freethinkers,  ]>.  •». 


:i  On  Free-will,  p.  322.  Part.  iv.  sect.  7. 
4  See  a  short  Defence  of  the  Doctrine 


of  Atonement,  p.  92,  from  Graham, 
about  having  as  much  occasion  for  gibbets 
as  churches.  5  P.  75  Hvo. 


P.  4.  7  Vol.  i.  p.  32C. 


II.  v.  10.] 


CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


335 


I.  The  Socinians  keep  constantly,  in  spite  of  all  answers, 

charging  the  Trinitarians  with  denying  the  unity  of  God,  and 
the  humanity  of  Christ8. 

Archbishop  King,  in  his  Sermon  on  Foreknowledge9,  has 
a  passage  to  our  purpose. 

Stillingfleet,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  opposes  Mr.  Locke 
on  identity,  as  if  Mr.  Locke  brought  into  doubt  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  ;  though  Mr.  Locke 
maintained  that  doctrine. 

See  Archbishop  Sharp,  vol.  i.  Sermon  1.  4<thly.  See  a  good 
recommendation  of  this  canon  in  Gilpin's  Lives  of  the  Re 
formers10,  from  Bishop  Taylor's  Liberty  of  Prophesying. 

Nestorius  suffered  through  want  of  attention  to  this  canon. 
See  Mosheim,  5th  Cent.  2,  5,  9. 

If  the  Epicureans  had  been  charged  with  the  consequences 
of  their  doctrines,  Cicero  observes  that  they  would  have  been 
very  different  persons  from  what  he  found  them.  For  Epicu 
reans  and  Stoics  see  Encyclopedic,  vol.  i.  p.  809,  col.  2. 
and  81011. 

If  we  are  Christians  we  must  be  slaves.  This  is,  in  sub 
stance,  the  remark  of  Machiavelli,  quoted  in  Mr.  Hume's 
Natural  History  of  Religion12. 

A   Chinese  philosopher,   reasoning  against  the  doctrine  of 

Foe,  viz.  that  the  body  is  only  a  dwelling  for  the  soul,  urges13, 

471   that   Foe   must   wish   to  root  out  of  the   heart   the  virtue  of 

love    of  parents   (" parens") ;    he    must  make   their  persons 

despicable. 

It  would  seem  odd  to  us  to  charge  those  who  preach  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  with  encouraging  suicide ;  yet  we  are 
told  that  suicide  has,  in  fact,  been  the  consequence  of  that 
doctrine.  It  generally  happens  that  the  consequences  charged 
do  not  follow  in  fact;  but,  though  they  do  sometimes,  they 
may  not  always.  I  do  not  know,  after  all,  whether  the  Pre- 
destinarians  and  Necessitarians ,  as  good  Christians  and  as 
good  men  as  any  others,  have  not  suffered  most  by  having  con 
sequences  of  their  opinions  charged  upon  them. 

I  have  given  the  more  instances  under  this  canon,  as  it 
has  seemed  to  want  explanation ;  and  as  instances  under  it 


u  Racov.  Cat.  p.  <M). 
'•'  Sect.  33.  3«.  10  P.  IB. 

11  See  something  to  the  purpose  of  this 
canon,  Lardner's  Heresies,  B.  i.  sect.  17- 


12  Essays,  8vo.  vol.  n.  p.  4oo. 
1:!  Spirit  of  Laws,  Book  xxiv.  Chap.  19. 
Note. 


336 


CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


[II.  V.  11. 


seem  to  improve  and   enlarge  the  mind;  and  to  have  a  ten-    I. 
dency  to  prevent  that  fault  in  controversy  into  which  reason 
ing  and  well-meaning  men  are  most  likely  to  fall. 

Canon  7.      Against  referring  things  to  party. 

Bishop  Warburton  says1  of  Dr.  Rutherforth  :  "This, 
though  the  language  of  Toland,  Tindal,  Collins,  and  the 
whole  tribe  of  Freethinkers,  yet  comes  so  unexpected  from  a 
professor  of  Divinity,"  &c. 

Calixtus,  a  Lutheran  in  the  17th  century,  tried  to  recon 
cile  contending  parties2.  The  zealous  Protestants  charged 
him  with  favouring  Popery ;  and  a  book  was  published  against 
his  new  theology  with  this  title,  Crypto-papismus  novae 
Theologiae  Helmstadiensis3.  He  was  also  charged  by  Luther 
ans  with  favouring  the  reformed.  He  met  with  opposition 
from  opposite  parties. 

Archbishop  Fenelon's  book,  called  Maxims  of  the  Saints,  472 
was  condemned4  when  it  got  charged  with  Molinism. 

Jonathan    Edwards    was    accused    of   being;   an    Hobbist. 


charged 


with    Atheism    and 


Cudworttis    famous    work    was 
Arianism5. 

Pope  was  ranked  with  Tories  by  Whigs,  and  with  Whigs 
by  Tories.  Like  good  Erasmus. 

Canon  8.      Against  the  misapplication  of  ridicule. 

The  ridicule  thrown  by  Bishop  Warburton  on  Dr.  Ruther 
forth  might  have  been  avoided,  without  hurting  any  argument. 
It  can  scarce  be  conceived  to  have  sprung  from  a  desire  of 
promoting  truth  or  virtue.  Take  particularly  the  quotation 
from  the  monk  of  Chester  about  Leon  Gawerr\ 

See  also  the  conclusion  of  the  Dedication  to  the  Free 
thinkers,  about  the  Egyptian7  swine — tending  to  exasperate, 
rather  than  convince. 

Instances  might  be  taken  from  the  character  of  the  pro 
curess  in  Footers  Minor. 

11.  Having  seen  that  controversy  is  in  an  imperfect  state, 
the  last  business  we  have,  after  laying  down  some  rules, 
is  to  endeavour  to  conceive  some  other  expedients  for  im 
proving  it. 

1  Div.  Leg.  vol.  iv.  p.  131. 

2  3Iosheim,  Cent.  1J.  sect.  2.  Part  II. 
Chap.  i.  sect.  21. 

:i  Calixtus  was  of  the  university  of 
1 1  elms  tad  t,  where  professors  take  an  oath 
that  they  will  endeavour  to  diminish  dis 


sensions  amongst  Christians.     Moshcim, 
ibidem.  4  Volt.  L.  14.  Quittisme. 

fl  See  D.  L.  Pref.  to  vol.  n.  Part  i. 
pp.  -1!),  00. 

6  D.  L.  vol.  iv.  p.  IK!. 

7  10  ml  of  Bed.  to  Freethinkers. 


II.  V.  11.]  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  337 

I.  i.    We  should  consider  what  a  wretched  figure  our  contro 

versies  must  make  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  are  not  zealous 
Christians — of  plain  men  in  active  life,  who  have  not  time 
to  examine  into  the  grounds  of  different  Christian  tenets;  or 
in  the  eyes  of  those  who  have  a  turn  for  philosophy,  but 
have  not  studied  Christianity.  I  fear  Lord  Bolingbroke 

473  gives8    but    too  just    an    account   of    the   matter   in  his   first 
Essay  on  Human  Knowledge,  sect.  4.      Till  we  make  a  better 
figure   in  the  eyes  of  thinking  men,   we  must  expect  to  lose 
the  assistance  of  many  who  would  be  very  powerful  in  pro 
moting  the  Christian   cause". 

ii.  We  should  study  the  causes  of  past  miscarriages,  in 
history,  as  well  as  in  modem  times.  It  seems  likely  that  the 
Christian  religion  would  have  been  successfully  taught  in 
China,  had  not  the  different  sects  of  Christians  there  got  into 
controversy  with  one  another,  and  carried  it  on  in  such  a  man 
ner  as  to  disgust  the  emperor.  He  had  a  very  great  respect 
for  the  "missionaries,  on  account  of  their  skill  in  mathematics 
and  philosophy.  These  had  not  been  so  much  cultivated  in 
China  as  it  was  seen  they  deserved.  The  people,  however, 
were  not  unimproved  in  morals,  which  are  chiefly  wanting 
for  the  reception  nof  Christianity. 

iii.  It  might  prevent  our  being  over-heated  in  present 
controversy,  if  we  considered  how  very  frivolous  and  con 
temptible  some  past  controversies  have  been,  about  which 
prejudices  no  longer  subsist.  That  might  be  mentioned  about 
the  immaculate  conception  ;  that  about  the  question  agitated 
in  the  l6th  century,  whether  original  sin  is  to  be  placed  in 
the  class  of  substances™  or  accidents?  But,  perhaps,  the 
heresy  of  Galileo  might  be  as  interesting  as  any  to  us.  The 
decree  of  the  Inquisition  against  him,  and  his  abjuration,  are 

474  in    Ladvocafs   short   Biographical   Dictionary.      Any  dispute 
about  an  opinion  deemed  heretical  may  come  under  religious 
controversy. 

iv.  As  we  shall  be  called  visionary,  and  perhaps  derided 
as  chimerical,  for  speaking  of  improved  controversy,  as  if  it 


;;  Works  in  quarto,  vol.  in.  pp.  423, 


425. 


u  The  texts  of  Scripture  which  enforce 
A  prudent  regard  in  Christians  to  those 
who  are  not  so,  to  those  that  are  without, 
should  here  be  noticed  :  2  Cor.  vi.  3. 


Titus  ii.  7,  «.     1  Pet.  ii.  12,  15. 


10  IJth    Cent,   middle:    see   Voltaire, 
Louis  XIV.    Ceremonies  Chinoises. 

11  .  Book  I.  chap.  xix.  sect.  20. 

1:2  Mosheim,  Index,  Flacius,  or  115th 
cent.  sect.  3.  part  II.  chap,  i.  §.  .'>3. 


Col.  iv.  5.    1  Thess.  iv.  12.    1  Tim.  iii.  7.    ! 

VOL.  I.  22 


338  CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY.  [II.  V.  11. 

could  ever  be  in  fact  established,  we  should  fortify  ourselves   I. 
against  such  attacks,  by  conceiving  clearly  the  nature  of  the 
thing. 

A  man  may  talk  and  converse  as  if  he  were  of  no  party : 
worldly  politeness  makes  men  converse  so,  not  uncommonly: 
why  might  not  a  regard  for  religion  ?  why  might  not  this  be 
extended  to  controversy  ?  Why  might  not  a  person  use  him 
self  to  speak  in  religious  subjects  as  an  historian,  a  moderator, 
or  what  we  have  called  a  judge?  this  would  prevent  heat  and 
animosity.  It  is  by  no  means  impossible  to  speak  of  natural 
religion,  so  as  not  to  offend  any  set  of  heathens;  of  revealed, 
so  as  to  shew  no  disrespect  to  any  thing  that  pretended  to 
come  from  Heaven ;  of  Christianity,  so  as  to  seem  to  despise 
neither  Greek  Church,  nor  Latin  Church ;  and  of  reformed 
Christianity,  so  as  to  displease  neither  Lutheran,  Quaker,  nor 
Baptist.  Such  language,  become  general  and  habitual,  would 
make  men  regard  one  another  in  a  favourable  light,  and  dis 
pose  them  to  unanimity  and  brotherly  agreement. 

v.  Lastly,  we  should  look  out  for  instances  of  good  con 
troversialists,  and  make  them  the  objects  of  our  imitation. 
Augustin^  in  his  controversy  with  the  Donatists,  speaks  very 
handsomely  of  Cyprian,  at  the  same  time  that  he  opposes  his 
opinions.  Those  who  do  not  incline  to  go  to  the  fountain- 
head  may  find  specimens  in  Forbes.  Instruct.  Hist.  Theol. 
lib.  10.  Cyprian  himself  was  amiably  moderate  and  candid. 
Cypr.  Ep.  69.  Oxon.  translated  in  Wall's  Bapt.  chap.  ix. 
2d  part,  or  p.  464,  quarto. 

The  amiable  Fenelon  got  up  into  his  own  pulpit  in  the  475 
cathedral  of  Cambray,  where  he  was  archbishop,  and  con 
demned  himself.  It  was  in  consequence  of  an  act  of  authority ; 
but  his  manner  might  shew  that  he  preferred  the  unity  of  the 
Church  to  his  own  private  notions.  His  manner  was  such, 
that  it  has  been1  said  of  him,  though  vanquished,  he  became 
the  conqueror,  by  his  noble  candour.  The  emperor  of  China, 
Camhi2,  made  the  missionary  speak  openly  against  the  Chinese 
religion,  and  in  favour  of  the  Christian. 

Mr.  Hume's  note  at  the  beginning  of  his  Essay  on  the 
Populousness  of  ancient  Nations  is  very  candid : — Fas  est  ab 
hoste  doceri. 

We  have  an  interesting  account  of  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 

1  Voltaire,  Louis  XIV.  Qutftisme.  *  Ibid,  Cer,  Cbinoises. 


II.  V.   11.] 


CANONS    OF    CONTROVERSY. 


339 


I.    dria,  in  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  in.   p.  102;  and  of  Didymus 
of  Alexandria,  p.  389,  of  the  same  volume3. 

I  must  not  omit  mentioning  the  Letter  of  Tillemont  to 
Lami,  about  our  Saviour's  having  eaten  the  Passover  the 
evening  before  he  was  crucified.  Mons.  Nicole  speaks  of  this 
Letter4  as  a  perfect  model  of  Christian  controversy.  It  does 
indeed  seem  a  very  good  letter — simple,  frank,  benevolent. 
It  is  in  the  2d  vol.  of  Tillemont1  s  Memoirs,  pp.  6?8 — 754. 
Specimens  might  be  taken  from  p.  679.  2.  (which  is  like 
Sterne's  going  hand  in  hand).  Two  first  paragraphs  of  section 
1st — neatness  of  method;  sect.  20;  sect.  97,  conclusion  of  first 
paragraph ;  and  p.  753,  col.  2d,  to  the  end5. 

476  Did  I  recollect,  at  this  moment,  a  Protestant  Divine  who, 
when  engaged  in  controversy,  has  come  up  to  Tillemont6  in 
liberality  and  candour,  I  would  mention  him  with  pleasure; 
but  my  memory  is  imperfect,  and  my  reading  has  been 
confined. 


3  Voltaire  says,  in  his  Candida,  (chap, 
iv.  p.  17.)  that  Europeans  are  different 
from  others  in  something  belonging  to 
this  matter.     11  faut  encore  observer  que 
jusqu'aujourd'hui  dans  notre  continent, 
cette  maladie  nous  est  particuliere,  comme 
la  controverse. 

4  Ladvocat  under  Le  Nttin. 

r>  The  passages  here  only  referred  to 
were  most  of  them  or  all  read  at  lectures. 


8  Dr.  Burges  says,  in  his  Dedication 
to  Charles  the  First,  (1631,)  "  Hee  that 
is  overcome  of  the  truth,  parteth  victory 
with  him  that  overcometh,  and  hath  the 
better  share  for  his  part."  The  sentiment 
is  good ;  and  Dr.  Burges  was  probably 
sincere ;  though  by  truth  he  here  meant 
his  own  opinions  ;  and  though  he  was  to 
be  conqueror,  not  conquered. 


END  OF  VOL.  I.  IN   THE  PRECEDING  EDITIONS. 


ADVERTISEMENT 

PREFIXED  TO  THE  SECOND  VOLUME  IN  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


THE  Author  thinks  it  necessary  to  declare,  that  the 
patronage  of  the  Syndics  of  the  University  Press  was 
founded  on  their  confidence  in  him,  and  not  on  a  previous 
perusal  of  his  manuscript.  This  declaration  seems  requi 
site,  lest  the  Syndics  should  be  considered  as  giving  a 
sanction  to  some  opinions  advanced  in  the  Jirst  thirteen 
Chapters  of  the  third  Book* 

22—2 


[III.  i.  1,2. 

BOOK    III.  II. 

i 
OF  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  IN  GENERAL. 

THE  title  of  this  Book  must  be  understood  as  opposed  to 
that  of  the  Fourth  Book,  "  Of  particular  Religious  Societies" 
As  the  particular  societies  with  which  we  are  chiefly  con 
cerned  are  Christian  societies,  our  general  observations  may 
sometimes  relate  only  to  such,  and  may  set  forth  things  which 
are  common  to  them  only.  It  is  natural  to  use  the  enlarged 
expression,  because  Christian  societies  have  really  many  things 
in  common  with  other  religious  societies;  though,  in  strictness, 
no  observation  should  be  made  under  our  title  which  is  not 
applicable  to  every  religious  society  whatsoever. 


CHAPTER    I. 

ARRANGEMENT    OF    THE     SUBJECT    MATTER. 

1.  IN  treating  of  religious  societies  in  the  present  times, 
the  great  business  seems  to  be,  to  give  a  right  account  of  what 
are  called  Articles  of  Religion ;  including  under  that  name, 
creeds,  confessions  of  faith,  and  all  declarations  of  opinion  or 
doctrine   by   which   one  religious  community  is  kept  distinct 
from    another.      These   therefore    must    be   considered   as   the 
principal  objects  of  our  attention.     They  may  be  so  considered 
safely,  as  their  nature  cannot  be  explained  without  introducing 
all  subjects  which  relate  to  religious  society. 

2.  It  is  sometimes  found  useful  to  consider  a  subject  in 
two  different  and  opposite  methods.     According  to  the  first, 
we  begin  with  the  present  fact,  inquire  the  cause  of  it,  and 
mount  up,  from  cause  to  cause,  till  we  come  to  first  principles: 
according  to  the  second  method,  we  begin  from  first  principles 
as  the  original  cause,  and  trace  out  a  series  of  effects,  till  we 
come  to  that  which  is  the  object  of  our  researches.      Let  us 
not  neglect  either  of  these  methods. 

We  find  articles  of  religion  subsisting;  we  ask,  what  is  the 
cause  of  their  being  made  ?  The  first  answer  is,  because 
without  them  we  could  not  have  one  body  of  doctrine  taught 
to  all  the  people.  We  next  ask,  why  do  we  want  to  have  such 
unity  of  doctrine?  in  order  to  keep  men  from  dissensions. 


III.  i.  3—5.]       ARRANGEMENT    OF    SUBJECT    MATTER.  341 

II.  Where  is   the  great  good  of  keeping  men  from  dissensions? 
because  while  they  arc  disputing  and  doubting,  their  principles 

3  are  unsettled,  and  they  cannot  have  right  religious  sentiments. 
And  what  is  the  great  importance  of  their  having  right  senti 
ments?  because  from  their  sentiments  men  act. 

3.  If  we  begin  from  first  principles,  we  say,  to  bring  men 
to  right    conduct  is  the  design  of  all   religious  institutions : 
(religious  conduct,   when  regulated  by  reason,  will  be  right 
conduct).      In  order  to  bring  about  religious  actions  we  want 
religious  sentiments  ;  or,  trying  to  form  religious  sentiments 
is  the  effect  of  endeavouring  to  bring  about  religious  conduct. 
To   form   and  strengthen   religious    sentiments,   we    want    the 
mind  to  be  free  from  doubt  and  perplexity ;   we  want  an  uni 
formity  in  teaching ;  in  order  to  secure  uniformity  in  teaching, 
we  want  assent  to  one  body  of  doctrines  from  every   teacher 
belonging  to  any  one  society. 

This  latter  method  we  shall,  in  effect,  pursue ;  though  we 
shall  sometimes  seem  for  a  while  to  deviate  from  it. 

4.  According  to  this  method,  then,  we  must  first  mention, 
a  little  more  particularly,  the  general  end  or  design  of  religious 
societies.      It  is,  to  make  men  perform  all  their  several  duties 
with  spirit  and  constancy ;  to  give  them  motives,  and  inspire 
them  with  sentiments  and  affections,  for  that  purpose: — affec 
tions  so  well  directed,  as  never  to  carry  them  into  any  hurtful 
measures ;  so»strong  and  powerful,  as  to  enable  them  to  over 
come  all  difficulties  and  temptations.      This  supposes  that  men 
can  be  brought  to  agree  in  using  the  same  modes  of  religion  : 
when  they  cannot,  the  end  or  design  of  forming  a  particular 
religious  society  is  to  associate  as  many  as  can  agree,  so  far 
as   to  use  the  same  form  of  worship  and  instruction,  and  to 
abstain  from   all  disputes. 

If  any  one  says,  what  need  is  there  of  religion  in  order  to 

4  make  men  perform  their  duties  ?  why  cannot  morality  and  laws 
answer  the  purpose  ?  we  refer  him  to  what  has  been  said  before 
in  the  lf)th  chapter  of  the  first1  book. 

5.  Articles   of  religion   must  be  considered  as  means  of 
answering  the  ends  of  religious  society ;  if  they  are  used  for 
any  other  purpose  they  are  abused.      When   men    are  called 
upon*  therefore  to  join  in  one  form  of  instruction,   and,  as  a 
security,  to  give  their  assent  to  a  collection  of  opinions,  every 
thing  ought  to  be  done  with  a  view  to  the  end  now  described. 

1  Sect.  U>  anil  1J. 


342  ARRANGEMENT    OF    SUBJECT    MATTER.        [III.  i.  fi. 

And  as  they  should  be  called  upon  by  those  in  authority  to  II, 
declare  their  opinions  with  this  view,  so,  when  they  do  declare 
them,  they  should  give  some  attention  to  the  same  purpose. 
Indeed,  all  men  should  be  as  open  and  frank  as  possible ;  and 
when  they  can  choose  their  expressions,  they  should  take  those 
which  are  the  most  simple  and  proper ;  but  if  forms  are  fixed 
upon  for  them,  and  one  and  the  same  form  for  many  different 
ranks  and  sorts  of  persons,  they  should  then  consider  the 
reasons  for  which  they  were  fixed  upon.  Expressions  seem 
ingly  absolute  have  very  frequently  a  particular  reference,  and 
by  that  they  are  to  !be  limited  and  interpreted;  so  that  assent 
must  be  guided  by  the  purpose  which  men  in  authority  have 
in  view  when  they  require  it.  This  will  be  seen  more  plainly 
hereafter:  it  is  now  affirmed  chiefly  with  a  view  of  properly 
laying  out  our  subject. 

6.  There  is  one  difficulty  which  may  be  mentioned  now. 
Assent  must  depend  upon  the  design  and  purpose  of  articles  of 
religion;  but  who  is  competent  to  judge  of  articles  of  religion 
as  means  of  promoting  right  conduct  ?  Is  every  man  to  take 
for  granted  that  he  understands  their  end  and  design,  and  the 
manner  in  which  they  attain  it  ?  or  are  there  but  few  that  can 
limit  and  interpret  the  expressions  contained  in  them  by  such  5 
considerations  ?  Perhaps  the  best  answer  which  we  can  give 
to  these  questions  may  partake  of  the  imperfection  of  human 
things.  The  common  people  should  be  directed  by  the  in 
formed,  (or  philosophers2),  both  as  to  doctrines  and  the  man 
ner  of  assenting  to  them  ;  and  such  common  people  will,  in 
effect,  treat  a  body  of  doctrines  only  as  a  discriminating  mark 
of  the  community  to  which  they  belong.  The  best  informed 
should  search  to  the  bottom  of  the  matter :  intermediate  per 
sons  must  go  partly  upon  the  judgment  of  others,  and  partly 
upon  their  own,  in  different  degrees,  according  to  the  degrees 
in  which  they  are  informed. 

The  greatest  nicety  seems  to  arise  in  the  case  of  the  minis 
ters  of  religion.  They  seem  to  have  pretensions  to  judge  of 
reasons,  and  yet  their  chief  business  is  to  teach  what  is  pre 
scribed  by  authority.  In  reality,  they  seem  likely  to  be  in 
three  different  capacities  at  different  times :  they  will  some 
times  be  philosophers,  sometimes  teachers,  sometimes  men. 
When  they  are  to  act  as  philosophers,  they  should  examine 
into  the  foundations  and  reasons  of  things ;  when  as  teachers, 
1  Book  I.  chap.  x.  -  Book  I.  chap.  iv.  sect.  3. 


III.  i.  7.]        ARRANGEMENT    OF     SUBJECT     MATTER.  343 

II.  they  have  only  to  deliver  established  doctrines ;  when  as  men, 
they  must  avoid  doubts  and  perplexities  as  much  as  possible. 
It  will  require  some  fairness  of  mind  to  distinguish  the  occa 
sions  on  which  they  are  to  assume  these  different  characters. 
We  can  only  say,  they  must  distinguish  them  as  well  as  they 
are  able.  And,  I  should  imagine,  that  they  should  give  dif 
ferent  sorts  of  assent  in  these  different  capacities.  When  they 
are  so  old  and  so  informed  as  to  come  into  our  class  of  philo 
sophers,  their  assent  will  imply  their  having  examined  into  the 
grounds  of  the  opinions  to  which  they  subscribe :  when  they 

6  are  less  informed,  but  sufficiently  so  to  commence  teachers, 
their  assent  will  imply  that  they  have  considered  the  opinions 
in  a  competent  degree,  that  they  are  willing  to  teach  according 
to  them  as  far  as  their  teaching  goes,  and  that  they  have  not 
any  decided  opinion  against  any  of  them.  When  they  attend 
public  worship  as  mere  men,  they  will  repeat  creeds  chiefly  for 
edification  and  devotion.  A  creed  will  become  a  kind  of 
hymn — a  grateful  recollection  of  God's  mercies.  On  this 
principle  it  may  be,  perhaps,  that  creeds  are  sometimes  sung. 
Yet  even  the  ordinary  people  may  give  a  wrong  assent ;  and 
their  assent  will  be  wrong  if  they  do  not  really  prefer,  on 
religious  considerations,  their  church  to  others. 

7-  But  a  plain  honest  man  will  say,  I  can  tell  when  I 
speak  truth  and  when  I  speak  falsehood ;  and  that  is  the  main 
matter  in  giving  my  assent  to  any  thing.  We  answer,  we 
certainly  are  not  to  forget  the  duties  of  veracity  whenever  we 
make  any  declaration.  We  are  sincerely  to  say  whether  the 
meaning  of  the  articles  is  our  meaning,  so  as  to  deceive  no 
intelligent  person  whom  we  undertake  to  inform ;  but  the 
meaning  of  the  articles  will  depend  upon  circumstances  as 
well  as  upon  words;  and  veracity  itself,  though  plain  in  many 
cases,  is  not  so  in  all.  There  is  real  falsehood,  and  there  is 
apparent  falsehood  which  is  not  real. 

If  this  is  a  right  representation  of  the  case,  (whether  it  is 
or  not  will  appear  better  hereafter,)  assent  to  articles  of 
religion  must  be  regulated  by  the  nature  of  veracity  in  general, 
and  by  the  particular  ends  for  which  articles  were  contrived  : 
or,  to  speak  more  fully,  by  the  nature  of  veracity,  and  the 
nature  of  religious  societies ;  that  is,  on  the  nature  of  reli 
gions  sentiments,  the  efficacy  of  unity  of  doctrine  in  pro 
moting  such  sentiments,  and  the  need  there  is  of  articles 
of  religion  in  order  to  maintain  such  unity.  Let  us  then 


344  VERACITY.  [III.  ii.  1,  2. 

take  our  subjects  in  the  order  here  mentioned,  beginning  with  U, 
veracity. 

But  if  any  one  will  persist  in  saying,  that  nothing  can 
properly  be  concerned  in  assenting  but  veracity,  I  would  not 
directly  contradict  such  person  ;  I  would  indulge  him  so  as 
to  express  the  thing  differently ;  and  I  would  say,  that  the 
occasion  and  purpose  in  view  make  a  part  of  the  sense,  and 
therefore,  that  speaking  according  to  them  makes  a  part  of 
veracity.  Still  it  will  suit  its  best,  in  examining  the  nature  of 
religious  society,  to  take  the  occasion  of  it,  and  its  end  and 
purpose  separately  from  other  parts  of  veracity. 


CHAPTER    II. 

OF    VERACITY. 

1.  VERACITY  may  perhaps  be  most  conveniently  defined, 
"an  habitual  abstinence  from  falsehood ;"  though  that  defini 
tion  will  bring   on    another ;    "  falsehood   is    deceiving    those 
whom  we  undertake  to  inform,  by    the   use   of   signs   agreed 
upon  between  us." 

2.  This  manner  of  defining,  will  shew   us  the  difference 
between  real  and   apparent  falsehood  ;    which  it    is  often    of 
great  importance  to  know.     For  it  follows,   from    the  defini 
tions,  that  we  cannot  be  guilty  of  real  falsehood  if    we    de 
ceive    no    one;    (nor  attempt    to   deceive):     nor    if  we    only 
deceive    those    whom    we    have    not    undertaken    to   inform  : 
nor,  lastly,  though  we  do  happen  to  deceive  those  whom  we 
are  engaged  to    inform,  if   it  be  by  the  use  of  signs    whose 
meaning  has   not  been  sufficiently   agreed   upon  between    us ; 
or  without    those    signs  whose   meaning  has  been   sufficiently 
determined.     Yet   we  may  be  guilty    of  apparent   falsehood, 
even   though    we  deceive  no  one,   though  we  do  not  attempt 
to    deceive,   if  our   words,  or  other  signs,  are  such  as  appear 
likely   to  deceive;   such   as  might   through  custom  deceive,  if 
some   particular  circumstances  did  not  prevent  it.    .  We  may 
be   guilty  of  apparent  falsehood,    if  we  deceive  persons  who 
depend    upon  us,    though    in    reality  we  have   not,    expressly 
or  tacitly,    undertaken    to    inform    them ;     or   if,    when   it    is 
clear  that   we   do  address  ourselves  to-  them,  the  signs  which 


III.  ii.  3.]  VKHACITV.  345 

II.  we  make  use  of  are  hastily  and  rashly  interpreted,  on  a 
<)  presumption  that  their  meaning  is  known,  though  in  reality 
nothing  has  passed  to  settle  it.  In  the  first  case,  we  ap 
parently  intend  to  deceive ;  in  the  second,  we  seem  to  under 
take  to  inform ;  in  the  third,  we  seem  to  use  signs  in  a 
sense  agreed  upon;  though  we  really  do  not  any  of  the 
three. 

That  we  are  not  guilty  of  real  falsehood  in  the  three 
cases  now  mentioned,  may  farther  appear  from  the  consider 
ation,  that  confidence^  the  mutual  confidence  of  men,  is  not 
hurt  or  diminished  in  any  of  them.  He  who  is  not  deceived 
will  continue  to  trust  what  men  say ;  he  who  is  deceived 
by  listening  to  what  is  said  to  other  men,  or  by  relying  on 
information  for  which  no  one  is  accountable  to  him,  will 
soon  recollect  that  he  has  deceived  himself;  and  so  will  he 
who  has  trusted  to  signs,  the  purport  of  which  has  been 
conjectured,  not  agreed  upon.  He  may  be  vexed  for  a  while, 
but  his  disappointment  will  generate  caution  and  prudence, 
not  distrust.  Now  the  great  evil  of  real  falsehood  is,  that  it 
destroys  confidence,  and  hinders  men  from  uniting  with  each 
other,  or  profiting  by  each  other's  experience. 

Another  material  deduction  from  our  manner  of  defining 
is,  that  no  one  can  speak  real  falsehood  but  to  some  particular 
person.  No  one  can  be  charged  with  falsehood  absolutely. 
The  charge  must  exhibit  a  misleading  of  some  person  whom 
the  speaker  has  undertaken  to  inform ;  and  with  whom  he 
has  agreed,  expressly  or  tacitly,  about  the  meaning  of  certain 
signs.  I  use  person  in  the  singular  number,  but  our  person 
may  be  an  artificial  person,  a  society  or  body  of  men,  consisting 
of  any  number  of  individuals. 

3.  One  cause  of  error,  with  respect  to  veracity?  is,  that 
custom  is  apt  to  pass  for  nature.  I  mean,  that  the  connexion 
between  words  and  the  ideas  annexed  to  them,  which  is 
10  merely  arbitrary,  and  the  work  of  custom,  is  looked  upon 
as  some  thing  in  the  nature  of  things.  Not  that  persons 
do  not  know  and  understand  the  contrary,  when  they  think ; 
but  they  suffer  habit  to  prevent  their  thinking.  Even  visible 
,s •/#•;/. v  are  arbitrary,  and  so  may  emblematical  actions  be 
called  properly,  though  there  is  some  faint  analogy  between 
the  sign  and  the  thing  signified1 — some  sort  of  natural  con 
nexion  ;  but  between  words  and  ideas  there  is  none  at  all  : 
1  See  Book  I.  chap,  xvii.  sect,  (j  and  18. 


34()  VERACITY.  [III.  ii.  4. 

(for  it  is  not  worth  mentioning  that  some  few  words  are  made  II. 
to   express  something  by   a  sound,    so    that   the  sound  is    an 
echo   to   the   sense).      Yet   custom    ties    words    and    ideas    so 
closely   together,  that   thinking   men   do  not   always  separate 
them  ;   the  unthinking  scarce  ever. 

When  those  who  have  not  been  used  to  examine  into 
these  matters,  are  put  in  mind  that  any  sound  might  have  been 
made  to  stand  for  any  thing,  or  idea,  they  will  be  apt  to  ask 
— how  has  an  agreement  been  made  that  a  certain  word  shall 
be  a  sign  of  a  certain  thing  ?  and  what  is  the  nature  of  such 
agreement?  We  may  answer,  probably  a  word  has  come  to  stand 
for  a  certain  idea  imperceptibly,  by  a  great  number  of  trials, 
the  nature  of  which  cannot  be  described.  It  is  most  likely 
that  those  who  made  such  trials  could  not  have  described 
them,  even  at  the  time  they  were  made ;  so  that  the  manner 
in  which  words  were  fixed  upon  as  signs  makes  a  separate  and 
curious  subject1.  It  is  enough  for  us,  that  the  connexion 
between  a  word  and  its  meaning  has  been  very  frequently 
recognized ;  and  the  reasonable  expectation  which  men  have, 
that  it  will  be  continued,  is  a  claim  to  have  it  continued, 
when  nothing  is  said  to  the  contrary.  An  agreement  very  11 
frequently  executed,  is  an  agreement  ratified.  The  agreement 
of  which  we  now  speak  is,  in  its  origin  at  least,  of  the  tacit 
sort ;  but  that  tacit  agreements  are  valid,  both  moralists  and 
lawyers  teach.  If  every  idea  had  its  own  sign,  I  do  not 
see  why  this  agreement  would  not  be  strict  and  definite ; 
but  as  far  as  the  senses  of  words  are  indefinite,  so  far  must 
the  agreement  be  indefinite,  by  which  any  word  is  made  a 
sign :  but  agreements  not  well  defined  are  valid,  though  more 
easy  to  be  evaded  than  such  as  are  definite. 

4.  The  agreement  (that  a  certain  word  shall  be  a  sign 
of  a  certain  idea)  may  be  changed^  either  tacitly  or  expressly. 
The  tacit  changes  in  the  allowed  sense  of  a  word  are  brought 
about  in  the  same  manner  in  which  a  sense  is  first  given  to 

o 

a  word ;  perhaps  not  without  some  falsehood  in  those  who 
begin  changing.  Words  in  old  English  have  very  different 
meanings  from  what  they  have  in  modern  English.  The 
word  knave  used  to  signify  merely  a  servant;  St.  Paul2  was 
once  the  knave  of  Jesus  Christ :  and  villain3  meant  formerly 


1  The  precious  metals  have,  by  a  like 
series  of  trials,  come   to  be  given   and 


modities. 
2  Rom.  i. 


taken  in  exchange  for  all  valuable  com-   |       3  Blackstone,  Index,  Villein. 


III.  ii.  3.]  VERACITY.  34-7 

II.  only  a  very  low  kind  of  tenant,  not  indeed  very  much  above 

a  slave something  like  one  of  the  Spartan  helotes. 

Express  changes  may  be  made  for  various  purposes,  as  for 
that  of  writing  in  cypher.  And  for  whatever  purpose  they  are 
made,  if  the  rules  expressed  are  observed,  (and  affirmations  are 
according  to  fact)  no  falsehood  can  ensue.  Suppose  you  and 
I  agree  to  call  the  sun  by  the  name  of  moon,  and  the  moon 
by  the  name  of  sun,  then  I  speak  truth,  to  you,  if  I  say,  'The 
moon  is  many  times  greater  than  the  sun  ;  the  sun  is  an  opaque 
body,  and  shines  only  by  the  light  falling  upon  it  from  the 
moon,  and  reflected  to  the  earth:1  but  if  I  say,  'The  sun  is 

12  many  times  larger  than  the  moon  ;  the  moon  is  opaque,  and 
visible  only  by  means  of  light  coming  from  the  sun,1 — I  speak 
falsehood.  Cyphers  might  thus  be  made,  so  that  known  words 
should  be  used  in  interchanged  senses,  or  that  negative  expres 
sions  should  be  understood  affirmatively ;  and  these  might 
happen  to  deceive  those  who  accidentally  saw  them,  but  if 
the  agreement  made  was  observed,  they  would  contain  no 
falsehood,  on  that  account. 

Hence  we  may  see,  how  some  propositions  may  be  true, 
which  according  to  the  letter  are  false.  In  this  case  customary 
words  are  used,  but  not  in  their  first  customary  sense.  They 
have  acquired  a  new  sense  by  some  agreement,  (probably  of 
the  tacit  sort,)  and  yet  they  have  not  quite  lost  their  old 
one:  an  habitual  feeling  remains,  by  which  the  old  one  is 
deemed  the  right  one.  'My  master  is  not  at  home,'1  says  a 
servant,  when  his  master  is  really  within.  This  proposition 
is  false  according  to  the  letter,  that  is,  according  to  the  old 
customary  signification ;  but  it  is  true  according  to  the  new 
meaning,  which  fear  of  offending  has  forced  upon  the  words : 
this  new  meaning  is,  'my  master  cannot  receive  you  at  this 
time  f — in  which  a  doubt  is  left,  whether  real  absence,  or 
business,  &c.  is  the  cause  of  the  refusal.  I  have  been  told  that 
Archbishop  Seeker,  being  asked  about  this  matter,  answered, 
'The  Jirst  man  that  used  this  excuse  when  he  was  really  at 
home  told  a  lie."*  Ironical  expressions  may  be  ranked  under 
this  head,  and  such  writings  as  Gulliver's  Travels. 

5.  If  any  one  imagines  that  I  lightly  esteem  the  duty  of 
veracity,  or  that  I  look  upon  it  as  any  mark  of  an  improved 
mind  to  be  careless  about  it,  he  mistakes  me  exceedingly. 
Nothing  is  farther  from  my  wishes,  than  to  lay  any  founda- 


848  VERACITY.  [HI.  ii.  6. 

lion  for  subterfuge  or  evasive  pretences1.  I  should  be  sorry  to  II. 
have  any  man  in  the  world  thought  a  warmer  friend  to  sincerity  13 
and  simplicity  than  myself.  I  honour  and  adore  them.  I 
abhor  deceit;  I  never  deceive  any  one;  at  least  it  is  my 
study  to  avoid  deceiving ;  I  would  not  deceive  a  child,  nor, 
when  many  other  men  would,  a  sick  person.  When  I  think 
of  the  evils  which  mankind  bring  on  themselves  by  duplicity 
and  artifice,  by  simulation  and  dissimulation,  I  feel  greatly 
dejected  ;  when  I  think  of  the  happiness  which  they  might 
procure  by  an  universal  sincerity,  nay,  which  they  might 
immediately  enjoy,  by  a  general  openness,  frankness,  and  a 
genuine  effusion  of  their  hearts  and  minds,  I  feel  myself 
filled  and  elated  with  pleasure.  Let  no  one  think  so  ill  of  me 
as  to  conceive  me  saying  this  through  ostentation.  It  is  a  neces 
sary  declaration  :  made  necessary,  first,  by  the  likelihood  that 
the  scope  of  my  reasoning  may  be  misapprehended  ;  and,  next, 
by  the  alarm  which  this  Third  Book  has  actually  given  to 
some  persons  of  great  learning  and  eminence,  who  judged 
of  it  from  the  printed  Heads  of  Lectures8. 

6.  This  apology  will  receive  great  help  from  considering,  14 
in  the  last  place,  the  consequences  of  not  seeing  clearly  the 
distinction  between  real  and  apparent  falsehood.  They  seem 
to  be  these  ;  that  those  who  are  not  scrupulous  run  the  more 
easily  into  real  falsehood,  and  that  those  who  are  scrupulous 
suffer  poignant  unhappiness  because  they  have  been  almost 
unavoidably  drawn  into  that  which  is  only  apparent.  First, 
when  men  find  that  they  are  in  some  sense  violating  the  obli 
gations  of  veracity,  and  yet  that  they  did  not  mean  to  do 
wrong,  and  are  not  blamed — if  they  have  not  an  idea  of  the 


1  Bishop   Law   talks    of  leading    the 
members  of  the   Church   "into  all  the 
labyrinths   of  a  loose  and   a  perfidious 
casuistry."     On  Subscription,  p.  22. 

2  When   published   in  1783.— Bishop 


Lectures;  (see  book  I.  chap.  i.  sect.  <>); 
but,  if  I  have  publicly  delivered  any 
thing,  it  seems  best  either  to  retract  or 
publish  it.  All  I  say  in  this  book 
about  veracity  seems  to  me  quite  a  plain 


Porteus  and   Bishop  Hallifax  in  parti-   '•   series  of  arguments  or  observations.    Not 
cular  expressed  themselves,  in  letters  to       being  able  to  retract  what  I  deem  to  be 


me,  as  entertaining  apprehensions  con 
cerning  some  parts  of  the  heads  relating 
to  veracity.  And  I  have  been  lately 
advised  to  omit  some  things  which  had 
been  reported  from  the  lectures.  No  one 
can  be  more  willing  to  retract  any  mis 
taken  position  than  I  am.  I  claimed  the 
liberty  of  retracting  at  the  opening  of  the 


such,  I  think  it  best  to  submit  them  to 
the  judgment  of  others.  I  once  had  a 
glimpse  (in  a  Keview,  I  believe,)  of 
something  said  by  Mr.  Dyer  against  this 
book,  and  I  had  intended  to  examine  it; 
but,  in  country  retirement,  I  have  not 
opportunity;  and,  as  1  remember,  the 
expressions  were  chiefly  declamatory. 


Ill.iii.    ].]  RKLIC.IOUS    SENTIMENTS.  319 

II.  boundaries  between  real  and  apparent  falsehood,  they  pass 
imperceptibly  from  apparent  to  real,  and  then  think  they  are 
as  little  wrong,  and  will  be  as  little  blamed,  as  before ;  and  so 
they  get  confirmed  in  habits  of  real  falsehood.  It  is  the  same 
thing  injustice,  or  honesty.  Injustice  may  be,  and  is  often, 
apparent  when  it  is  not  real;  and  seeming  injustice  gets  ex 
cused,  till  men  who  have  not  studied  the  difference,  come  to 
allow  themselves  in  that  which  is  real.  Nothing  could  better 
serve  the  cause  of  justice  than  to  mark  out  the  distinction  be 
tween  real  and  apparent,  so  plainly  that  no  one  could  avoid 
seeing  it ;  for  real  injustice  would  not  then  be  tolerated.  In 
like  manner  nothing  can  be  of  greater  service  to  truth  than  to 
shew  plainly  the  nature  of  apparent  falsehood ;  for  when  that 
is  clear,  real  falsehood  has  no  excuse. 

Those  who  are  very  desirous  of  doing  their  duty  in  all 
things,  and  are  scrupulously  anxious  about  every  seeming 
transgression,  suffer  as  great  unhappiness  about  any  apparent 
falsehood  which  they  may  have  run  into  as  if  it  were  real — if 
they  are  not  duly  aware  of  the  distinction.  The  case  of  a 
person  in  this  situation  is  truly  worthy  of  compassion,  whether 
he  forgoes  advantages  which  he  might  lawfully  enjoy,  or 

15  possesses  them  with  secret  misgivings,  or  under  compunction 
and  self-condemnation.  And  that  man  who  should  neglect  to 
comfort  the  feebleminded3,  and  support  the  weak,  when  so 
worthy  of  relief,  or  who  should  avoid  describing  apparent  false 
hood  lest  he  himself  should  be  suspected  of  insincerity,  would 
deserve  a  greater  torment,  if  greater  there  can  be,  than  that  of 
a  mind  disquieted  by  unsettled  scruples  and  fluctuating  re 
morse. 


16  CHAPTER    III. 

OF    RELIGIOUS    SENTIMENTS. 

1.  IN  the  first  place  we  may  take  notice  of  the  effects 
of  sentiments  in  general.  If  we  speak  of  mankind  from  a 
general  view  of  them,  and  found  our  observations  upon  ex 
perience,  we  may  say,  that  they  act  from  their  habitual  senti 
ments.  Their  vices  arise  from  vicious  sentiments,  indulged 
so  as  to  be  unduly  prevalent ;  their  virtues  arise  from  good 
:>  1  Thess.  v.  14. 


350  RELIGIOUS     SENTIMENTS.  [III.  iii.  2,  3. 

sentiments,  to  which  habit  has   given  power   and  authority.  II. 
Religious   sentiments,   of  various   sorts,  have  been  found  by 
experience  uncommonly  forcible. 

This  is  so  clearly  seen,  that  corrupting  a  man's  sentiments 
is  regarded  by  lawgivers  as  causing  him  to  commit  wickedness; 
and  therefore  punishments  are  decreed  against  the  cause,  as 
well  as  against  the  effect ;  and  those  are  deemed  offenders  who 
seduce\  bribe,  suborn. 

Not  that  there  is  an  absolute  necessity  that  a  man  to 
whom  a  bribe  is  offered  should  be  dishonest,  or  wicked  in  any 
way.  When  we  look  at  the  nature  of  things,  and  at  actions, 
beforehand,  we  see  a  possibility  that  an  impulse  of  passion  or 
sentiment  may  be  resisted  and  overcome ;  but,  when  we  look 
back  upon  facts,  we  naturally  expect  that  which  has  happened 
to  happen  again  ;  and  all  provisions  should  be  made  on  proba 
ble  expectations — provisions,  of  public  laws,  and  private  pru 
dential  maxims. 

2.  The   sentiments    which  arise  in    the  human  mind  are 
innumerable,  and,  we  might  say,  of  innumerable  kinds,  if  we   17 
made  every  minute  difference  to  constitute  a  new  kind.     Lon- 
ginus  was  sensible   of  this,  and  expresses  it  clearly2:   TroXXct 
yap  KOL  avapiOfjirjTa  TrdOtj,  /cat  ovo   ai>  etTrety  rt?  OTroaa  cvvairo. 

In  order  to  treat  of  them  we  divide  them  into  classes ;  which 
indeed  is  the  case  in  many  other  things  ;  no  two  individuals  of 
any  class  being  perfectly  like  each  other. 

3.  Religious  sentiments  seem  as  if  they  might  most  com- 
modiously  be  formed  into  two  classes ;  one  called,  in  an  exten 
sive   sense,   Fear,    the   other,    Love.      All    sentiments   of    the 
respectful   sort  might  be  ranked  under  fear;   all  those  of  a 
more   kind   and   tender    sort,  under   love.      The   former   sort 
would  arise  from  contemplating  the  power  and  justice  of  God ; 
the  latter,  from  attending  to  the  Divine  benevolence. 

The  Church  of  England  seems  to  acknowledge  such  a 
method  of  classing.  In  the  Litany  we  beseech  God  that  it 
may  please  him  to  give  us  an  heart  (the  seat  of  the  sentiments 
and  affections)  to  love  him,  and  to  dread  him ;  and  in  the 
Collect  for  the  second  Sunday  after  Trinity,  we  beg  that  he 
would  "  make  us  to  have  a  perpetual  fear  and  love  of"  his 
"  holy  name."  By  putting  fear  and  love  so  close  together,  the 
compilers  of  our  Liturgy  might  have  some  idea  of  a  senti 
ment  compounded  of  them  as  being  proper  for  general  use. 
1  Mentioned  B.  II.  chap.  iv.  sect.  1.  De  Subl.  Sect.  22,  de  llyperbatis. 


III.  Hi.  4-6.]  RELIGIOUS    SENTIMENTS. 


351 


II.  Under  the  head  of  Fear,  then,  we  rank  respect,  re 
verence,  veneration,  admiration,  awe ;  besides  what  we  call 
fear  usually. 

And  under  the  head  of  Love,  complacency,  gratitude,  con 
fidence,  resignation,  and  love  properly  so  called. 

18  4.    It  may  be  as  proper  here  as  any  where  to  take  notice 
of  the    effect   of  doubt   upon   the   sentiments   and  affections". 
When  doubt  and  perplexity   set  the  understanding  at  work, 
the  affections  will  not  rise  to  any  considerable  height :   they 
flourish  in  tranquillity  of  mind,  and  security. 

This  observation  may  seem  to  contradict  one  of  Mr.  Hume11, 
that  suspense  and  uncertainty  heighten  the  passion  of  fear; 
but  in  the  sort  of  situations  from  which  Mr.  Hume  draws  his 
opinion,  the  intellectual  powers  are  not  strongly  exerted.  A 
person  just  makes  suppositions,  which  instantly  excite  passion  : 
'  My  friend  is  in  pain  and  misery ;' — '  he  is  attacked  and  over 
come — he  is  gone,  lost  for  ever.1  These  are  so  many  views  of 
misery — so  many  scenes  which  must  move  and  affect ;  but  if  a 
man  under  such  fears  were  to  set  himself  fairly  to  reason,  or  to 
estimate  probabilities,  I  doubt  not  but  the  mere  exertion  of  his 
understanding  would  moderate  his  apprehensions. 

5.  We  must  now   consider  how   a   due   strength   of  the 
religious  affections  can  be  attained.     Our  proper  business  being 
with  social  institutions,  we  must  not  dwell  on  the  measures  to 
be  used  for  this  purpose  by  the  private  individual.    We  must  be 
content  with  briefly  observing,  that  he  has  it  in  his  power  to 
use  methods  which  may  be  called  internal  and  external :   he 
has  a  power  of  turning  his  mind  to  such  meditations  as  will 
warm  his  affections ;   and  he  has  also  the  power  of  throwing 
himself  into  such  scenes5  and  such  society,  and  of  reading  such 
books,  as  will  answer  the  same  end. 

19  But  if   we  think   only   of  our    own    proper  business,  of 
the  manner  in  which  social  authority  shall  be  used  in  order  to 
excite  devout  affections  in  numbers  of  men,  we  must  consider 
and  study  chiefly  the  principles  of  association  and  sympathy. 

6.  Two  ideas  are  said  to   be  associated,  when,  if  one  of 
them  comes  into  the  mind,  it  will  bring  the  other  along  with 
it.     That    ideas    do   get    to   be    so   associated,  is  plain  from 


3  We  have  had  occasion  to  hint  at  this 
before. 

4  Essay  on  the  Passions,  near  end  of 
Sect.  1.— .No.  8.    8vo,  vol.  11,  pp.  18!), 


190.    In  Mr.    Hume's    quotation    from 
Hor.  Lib.  v.  Od.  1,  for  pullus  read  pullis. 
5  Contemplation  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
raises  and  sobers  the  mind. 


352  RELIGIOUS    SENTIMENTS.  [III.  iii.  ~. 

experience.  The  association  is  formed  after  the  manner  of  II. 
habits ;  and,  considering  the  innumerable  and  perpetual  in 
stances  which  we  have  of  it,  it  is  wonderful  that  Mr.  Locke 
should  be  the  first  philosopher  who  made  regular  observations 
upon  it.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  case,  by  his  manner 
of  introducing  the  Subject.  When  we  come  into  any  place 
where  we  have  conversed  with  a  person,  the  idea  of  the  person 
recurs  with  that  of  the  place.  And  not  only  ideas  recur  thus, 
but  they  revive  the  old  sentiments  and  affections.  We  feel 
terror'2  at  the  appearance  of  an  object  which  we  saw  when 
we  were  terrified  ;  we  feel  pleasure  at  the  sight  of  any  thing 
which  once  made  us  happy.  Love  and  hatred  seem  to  be 
generated  by  habitual  associations  between  pleasure  and  a 
certain  person,  and  pain  and  a  certain  person.  Grief  is  some 
times  so  strong,  on  coming  into  a  room  where  one  has  attended 
a  dying  friend,  that  many  persons  have  been  obliged  to  avoid 
such  scenes,  for  a  great  length  of  time,  or  for  their  whole 
lives3. 

Association  seems  to  be  one  foundation  of  our  habits.  20 

7-  Sympathy  need  not  be  defined.  It  is  feeling  as  others 
feel,  or  having  a  sensation  or  sentiment  merely  because  an 
other  person  has  the  same,  or  something  very  near  it ;  some 
thing  rather  stronger  of  the  same  sort.  When  a  stroke  4  is 
aimed  at  another,  we  draw  back  our  own  leg  or  arm  :  when 
a  dancer  on  a  rope  twists  himself,  those  of  his  spectators  who 
are  quite  artless  do  the  same.  Even  robust  men  have,  on  seeing 
inflamed  eyes,  felt  their  own  eyes  in  some  degree  as  it  were  in 
flamed.  Grief  and  joy,  well5  expressed,  excite  grief  and  joy. 
When  we  see  benevolent  actions  we  sympathize  both  with  the 
benefactor  and  the  object0;  and  these  sympathies  forward  eacli 
other.  Sometimes  we  first  conceive  others  to  sympathize  with 
us,  and  then  we  feel  with  them.  A  son  who,  by  distinguishing 
himself,  gives  his  parents  pleasure,  sympathizes  with  their 


1  Hum.  Und.  B.  II.  Chap.xxxiii.  See 

also  Prelim.  Diss.  to  King's  Origin  of 

Evil,   Sect.   14 ascribed  to  Mr.  (Jay; 

and  Hartley's  Preface. 


of  the  word  Dantxick.  He  had  been  very 
ill,  with  fits,  and  a  soldier  had  amused 
him  with  stories  about  Dantzick ;  after 
he  got  better,  the  mention  of  that  city 


A.   friend  of  mine  used  to  be  under   I   recalled  the  stories,  and  with  them  the 


terror  during  an  high  wind :  the  house 
where  he  had  boarded  when  at  school 
had  been  blown  down ;  he  had  left  it  a 
few  minutes  before. 

3  I  remember  when  I  was  a  boy  seeing 
a  young  man  fall  into  a  lit  on  the  sound 


illness,  repeatedly. 

4  Smith's  Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments, 
p.  3,  ttvo. 


Ib.  p.  (!.   Rom.  xii.  15. 


«  Ib.  p.  81. 


III.  ill.  8.]  RELIGIOUS    SENTIMENTS.  353 

II.  sympathy,  or  congratulation.  Pleasures  are  heightened  by 
sympathy.  We  relish  music,  prospects,  painting,  poetry,  or 
the  chace,  more — in  company  with  those  who  have  the  same 
tastes  with  ourselves,  than  with  others.  And  if  a  man  dislikes 
what  we  like  he  lessens  our  pleasure :  this,  being  opposite  to 
sympathy,  might  be  called  antipathy.  Seditions  are  the  more 
violent  through  sympathy.  I  think  sympathy  is  spoken  of  as 
having  had  great  effects  in  the  Crusades.  Sympathy  seems  to 
be  the  ground  of  our  principle  of  imitation. 

But  we  must  not  proceed  farther  with  association  and 
sympathy  in  general.  Whoever  wishes  to  see  those  subjects 
treated  at  large,  may  consult  Hartley  on  Man  for  the  former, 
21  and  Smith's  Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments  for  the  latter.  Both 
these  works  seem  very  useful  for  analyzing  sentiments  ;  and 
each  author  finds  so  much  matter,  as  to  think  that  what  he  has 
is  sufficient ;  but  united,  they  would  be  still  more  useful  than 
separate.  Probably,  most  of  our  sentiments  and  affections 
would  be  found,  upon  examination,  to  be  owing  to  a  great 
number  of  both  associations  and  sympathies. 

8.  If  we  apply  to  religion  what  has  been  said  about 
association,  we  observe,  that  whatever  has  been  used,  for 
purposes  of  religion  only,  will  immediately  bring  religious 
sentiments  into  our  minds ;  or,  in  other  words,  our  ideas  of 
such  a  thins:  will  be  associated  with  our  ideas  of  lovin^  or 

o  t? 

fearing  God.  This  is  applicable  to  buildings,  vessels,  robes, 
persons.  If,  for  instance,  a  church  had  been  always  used 
by  any  one  simply  as  a  place  of  worship ;  if  his  mind  had 
always,  whilst  he  was  in  it,  been  wholly  given  up  to  thoughts 
of  God  and  religion ;  if  his  thoughts  had  never  wandered  to 
other  subjects  ;  if  he  had  never  considered  the  building  as  in 
any  manner  connected  with  his  worldly  interests,  &c.; — every 
part  of  it,  every  pillar  in  it,  would  seem  to  be  in  a  manner 
animated  ;  every  part  of  it  would  seem  to  breathe  a  spirit  of 
devotion : — one  might  almost  say,  it  would  be  as  a  body,  of 
which  the  Divinity  himself  was  the  soul. 

It  may  be  asked,  would  not  a  particular  closet  in  an  house, 
if  set  apart,  answer  the  same  purpose  ?  In  some  degree  it 
would ;  but  we  have  previously  a  general  association  between 
the  rooms  of  a  family  mansion,  and  the  cares,  riches,  pleasures, 
follies  of  this  world.  However,  this  would  have  some  effect. 

In  short,  association  is  that  on  which  we  must  chiefly 
depend  for  getting  our  attention  at  any  time  taken  from 

VOL.  I.  23 


354?  RELIGIOUS    SENTIMENTS.  [III.  ill.  9,  10. 

worldly  and  sensual  objects,  quickly,  immediately;  and  for  II. 
getting  it  at  once  fixed  on  the  business  of  devotion;  though  22 
its  effects  by  no  means  end  here. 

9.  Sympathy  serves  to  heighten  our  affections,  in  a  variety 
of  ways.     Not  only  in  prayer,  but  in  receiving  instruction.     It 
acts  powerfully,  not   only  on  those  who  pray  or  give   thanks 
with  one  mind,  but  on  those  who  hear  with  one  mind.      Nay, 
instructors  themselves  are  animated  by  a  good  audience;    and 
the   audience  sympathize  with  their  animation ;   so  that   new 
sympathies  between  the  hearer  and  the  speaker  keep  continually 
arising. 

It  is  a  remarkable  effect  of  sympathy,  that  it  not  only 
hinders  our  affections  from  being  too  dull,  but  from  being 
lwild  and  violent;  from  running  into  any  extravagant  vehe 
mence,  any  impotent  or  effeminate  excesses.  In  solitude,  a  man 
will  be  at  one  time  phlegmatic,  or  melancholy ;  at  another, 
enthusiastic,  or  frantic;  but  when  many  others  are  present 
with  him,  the  idea  of  their  presence  will  both  rouse  him 
from  lukewarmness,  and  restrain  him  from  excess  of  passion : — 
will  make  him  ashamed  of  stupidity,  and  yet  afraid  to  venture 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  sobriety  and  common  sense. 

One  cause  of  public  worship  might  in  fact  be,  that  desire 
which  men  naturally  have  of  communicating  and  sympathizing 
with  one  another  in  all  matters  of  importance — in  all  transac 
tions  which  have  any  thing  noble  or  sublime  in  them. 

10.  Lastly,  association  and  sympathy  heighten  one  another, 
in  religion  as  well  as  in  other  things.     If  a  man  came  into  a 
church,  and  it  had  its  proper  effect  upon  him  in  the  way  of 
association,  he  would  more  freely  sympathize  with  the  rest  of 
the  congregation;   and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  recollection  of 
his  having  sympathized,  would  add  strength  to  the  association 
between  the  building  and  the  worship. 

The  sect  called  Quakers2  have  sometimes  silent  meetings;  23 
that  is,  they  assemble  together,  and  in  buildings  appropriated 
to  religion.  Such  meetings  may  have  all  the  benefits  of  as 
sociation,  and  some  of  sympathy,  though  none  of  instruction ; 
and  one  does  not  see  why  a  public  meditation  in  a  place  of 
worship  might  not  nourish  religious  sentiments,  though  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  conceive  why  it  should  be  preferred  to  instruction 

1  Book  II.  chap.  i.  sect.  7.  I    sects,  heathen  or  Christian,  as  examples, 

2  Though  we  are  upon  religious  society       for  the  sake  of  illustration, 
in  general,  we  may  mention  particular 


III.  IV.  l.J  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  355 

II.  and  express  worship  of  the  Deity.  The  benefit  of  such  a 
meeting  may  afford  a  sufficient  answer  to  those  who  plead 
mediocrity  of  talents,  &c.  in  the  officiating  minister  or  preacher, 
as  an  excuse  for  absence  from  church. 


24  CHAPTER    IV. 

OF    UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE. 

IT  is  a  satisfaction  to  find  that  this  expression.  Unity  of 
Doctrine,  which  when  I  first  used  it  arose  from  the  nature 
of  the  thing  to  be  expressed,  is  one  which  was  used  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation.  This  appears  by  the  Orders,  or  Adver 
tisements,  or  Articles,  published  by  Queen  Elizabeth  in  the 
year  15643. 

1.  Our  first  business,  in  treating  of  unity  of  doctrine,  is 
to  distinguish  between  that  and  unity  of  private  opinion. 
Sterne  says,  All  who  think,  think  alike;  we  say,  no  two  men 
think  alike ;  but  he  means  in  one  thing,  we  mean  in  all  things, 
or  at  least,  in  all  the  doctrines  of  any  one  sect.  Probably 
he  would  not  have  asserted,  that  in  fact  many  are  to  be  found 
who  in  his  sense  can  be  said  to  think;  if  any  :  his  assertion 
seems  rather  to  belong  to  theory  than  practice.  That  the 
nearer  men  approach  to  thinking  with  simplicity  and  precision, 
the  nearer  they  are  to  unanimity,  I  doubt  not ;  but  we  are  more 
remote  than  we  are  aware  of  from  pure  and  accurate  reasoning, 
free  from  rhetoric  and  declamation.  If  men  thought  alike  in 
one  thing,  they  might  possibly  in  all  things ;  but  in  the  present 
state  of  things,  experience  forbids  us  to  hope  that  any  two 
men  will  think  so  reasonably  as  to  agree  in  such  a  number 
of  opinions  as  generally  constitute  the  body  of  doctrines  of 
a  religious  society. 

25  This  being  the  case,  it  follows,  that  if  men  must  hold  all 
the  same  opinions  in  order  to  worship  together,  no  two  men 
could  join  in  religious  duties.      But,  properly  speaking,  it  is 
not  unity  of  opinion  that  we  want,  but  united  action.     Adopt 
ing,  by  social  authority,  a  certain  set  of  ceremonies,  instructions, 
repetitions,  and  obeying  that  authority,  is  properly  action.     It 
is  acting  as  politicians  act,  who  agree  upon,   and  follow  one  set 
of  measures,  though  they  think  and  judge  differently  from  one 

3  See  Bishop  Sparrow's  Collection,  pp.  122,  123. 

23 — 2 


356 


UNITY     OF     DOCTRINE. 


[III.  iv.  2,3. 


another.      Governors  of  armies  and  of  communities  of  different  II. 
kinds  act  in  the  same  manner. 

Some  likeness  of  opinion  may  be  wanted  in  every  one  of 
these  cases,  but  not  a  total  coincidence.  We  may  say  some 
thing  more  on  this  hereafter1.  At  present,  the  business  is  only 
to  conceive  that  you  and  I  and  five  thousand  more  may  agree 
to  unite  in  public  worship ;  may  jointly  enact,  that  a  certain 
mode  of  instruction  shall  be  pursued,  that  no  confusion  or 
wrangling  shall  be  allowed  in  religious  assemblies  ;  and  yet  that 
each  of  us  may  differ  from  the  rest  in  several  opinions2. 

2.  We  need  not  have  a  more  proper  place  than  this  to 
mention  the  good  of  uniformity  in  ceremonies.      Uniformity  in 
ceremonies  is  extremely  useful,   and  in  a  manner  necessary  to 
religious  worship.  Without  it  all  things  cannot  be  done  "decent 
ly3  and  in  order."     A  ceremony  affects  both  him  who  performs 
it,    and  him  who  sees  it ;  and  in  congregations  each  person  is 
both  a  performer  and  a  spectator.      If  in  one's  closet  kneeling 
generates  humility,  it  will,   by  the  help  of  sympathy,  generate  26' 
a  stronger  sentiment   when  many  join  in  the   same   posture; 
though  a  weaker,  if  many  are  present,  and  some  kneel  whilst 
others  stand  :  in  that  case,  there  will  be  what  we  have  called  an 
antipathy.     A  ceremony  regularly  performed  by  a  large  num 
ber,  if  mild,  simple,  expressive,  has  a  fine  effect  on  all  minds, 
from  the  most  rude  to  the  best  informed  :  it  pleases,  it  ele 
vates,  yet  it  calms  or  checks  any  turbulent  emotions ;   it  sobers 
the  thoughts,  and  makes  them  orderly  and  decent.      To  those 
who  cannot  read,  or  are  apt  to  be  inconsiderate,  it  affords  a 
species  of  instruction.      What  the  Psalmist    says4    about   the 
language  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  might  be  said  of  the  language 

of  ceremonies  :  "  There  is  neither  speech  nor  language,  but 
their  voices  are  heard  among  them,11  In  whatever  way  men 
speak  or  write,  the  language  of  ceremonies  is  intelligible  to 
them  and  affecting5. 

3.  We  come  now  to  the  principal  proposition,  that  unity 
of  doctrine  is  necessary  towards  procuring  the  benefits  of  social 
religion.     The  truth  of  this  will  appear  from  considering,   that 


1  Sect.  4  of  this  chapter. 

2  Baxter  is  very  unwilling  to  suppose, 
that  though  men  differ  about  such  a  doc 
trine  as  that  of  perseverance,  a  doctrine, 
in  his  estimation,  very  important,  they 
should  not  be  in  every  thing  as  members 
of  the  same  church.   On  Persev.  prop.  fj. 


AVhat  is  meant  by  this  doctrine,  will  ap 
pear  under  Article  1(5  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

3  1  Cor.  xiv.  40. 

4  Psalm  xix.  3. 

:>  It  is  a  pity  when  pews  destroy  the 
uniformity  of  the  Church  ceremonies. 


III.  iv.  4.]  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  357 

II.  dissension  in  public  teaching,  i.  Deprives  us  of  the  benefit  of 
those  principles  which  were  before  spoken  of  as  instrumental  in 
promoting  religious  sentiments;  2.  That  it  obliges  men  to 
exert  their  intellectual  powers;  and  3.  That  it  often  raises 
passions  which  are  incompatible  with  devotion.  1.  Where 
dissension  prevails,  it  is  evident  that  sympathy  cannot  have 
place  :  strings  in  unison  help  each  other's  vibrations,  but  when 
discordant  they  check  and  obstruct  one  another.  I  might  not 
run  so  immediately  into  this  illustration,  were  there  not  a  possi- 

27  bility  that  it  might  prove  more  than  a  mere  illustration,  as  we 
became  better  acquainted  with   the   nervous  system,  and  saw 
more  distinctly  the  manner  in  which  vibrations  of  the  nerves 
and  emotions  of  the  mind  are  connected. 

Association  would  not  answer  our  purpose  if  the  place  of 
worship  reminded  us  only  of  perplexity,  dispute,  and  acrimony. 
While  these  filled  the  mind,  we  should  have  little  feeling  of  the 
divine  power  or  goodness.  2.  Dissension  must,  moreover,  set 
our  reasoning  powers  in  motion ;  and,  as  the  arguments  used 
would  be  very  subtle,  must  put  them  upon  the  G stretch.  And 
3.  It  is  scarce  conceivable,  that  we  should  keep  clear  of  party 
zeal  and  bitterness  ourselves :  these  would  effectually  prevent 
any  devout  affections  from  springing  forth  and  flourishing  in 
our  breasts. 

We  have  three  capital  Discourses  from  Dr.  Bdlguy  on 
things  relating  to  religious  society.  In  these  there  are  several 
passages,  on  our  present  subject,  highly  worthy  of  our  atten 
tion.  In  the  octavo  vol.  of  1785,  see  pp.  91,  92,  93.  99.  121. 
255,  256',  257.  259. 

In  the  above-mentioned  Orders,  Sec.  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
published  in  1564,  provision  is  made  in  the  first  page  against 
dissension  in  the  congregation  ;  yet  we  find  an  instance  of  it  in 
1597,  when  Bishop  Bilson  preached  one  doctrine  abput  the 
descent  into  hell,  and  another  minister  an  opposite  one  in  the 
same  pulpit7;  and  with  a  design  of  disputing. 

4.  As  dissensions  then  are  of  so  much  importance,  we 
should  consider  the  nature  and  effects  of  them  more  particu 
larly,  and  how  they  may  be  avoided.  Though  unity  of  doctrine 

28  docs  not  require  perfect  unity  of  private  opinion,  yet  it  requires 
some  likeness*.     There  are  some  differences  of  opinion  which 
may  be    deemed   inconsistent    with    unity  of   doctrine.     Sup- 

6  B.  III.  chap.  iii.  sect.  4.  i   gift,  p.  502. 

7  At  Paul's  Cross;  see  Strype's  Whit-   I       8  Dr.  Balguy,  Serm.  vii.  p,  119. 


358  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  [III.  iv.  4. 

posing  any  such  differences,  of  a  striking  sort,  there  must  be  II. 
a  separation ;  and  then  each  of  the  differing  opinions  may 
perhaps  find  favourers  sufficient  to  form  a  society.  There  is  no 
very  great  difficulty  in  this ;  but  there  may  be  some  cases 
where  dissensions  need  not  occasion  a  separation,  and  others 
where  it  may  be  doubtful  whether  the  differences  in  private 
opinion  are  consistent  with  unity  of  doctrine  or  not.  Let  us 
consider  what  may  be  done  in  doubts  and  difficulties  of  this 
nature. 

You  and  I  may  differ  about  some  one  point  which  we  may 
think  essential  to  right  worship,  or  right  conduct — the  Unity 
of  God,  worshipping  him  in  spirit,  human  sacrifices,  Sec.,  or 
we  may  differ  about  so  many  points,  that  omitting  them  all 
might  leave  us  too  few  subjects  of  public  instruction,  or  too 
few  expressions  for  public  devotions;  which  would  give  too 
much  to  private  devotion  and  meditation.  In  such  cases  we 
had  best  see  whether  we  can  form  two  religious  societies.  If 
numbers  are  insufficient,  that  will  be  reason  enough  for  our 
uniting,  though  we  differ  very  considerably,  as  Christians 
would  do  in  a  heathen  country.  Breaking  the  unity  of  the 
Catholic  Church  lightly,  or  without  sufficient  reason,  is  what 
has  been  called  schism,  and  is  an  important  offence. 

In  general,  separations  are  apt  to  seem  more  necessary 
than  they  really  are.  It  is  not  about  fundamental  doctrines, 
or  about  doctrines  level  to  the  human  judgment  that  men  are 
apt  to  divide ;  but  about  those  which  are  most  peculiar  to  a 
few,  and  most  obscure  and  difficult :  yet  it  can  scarce  ever  29 
be  really  important  to  divide  about  these.  It  is  rather  im 
patience  under  our  own  ignorance,  and  pride  disdaining  to  sub 
mit,  than  reason,  which  occasion  dissensions  about  them,  and 
therefore  which  occasion  separations.  We  should  avoid  sepa 
rations,  if  possible  ;  especially  as  religious  societies,  like  others, 
have  many  advantages  by  being  extensive.  Let  us  then  con 
sider  the  best  methods  of  preventing  separations,  and  such  dis 
sensions  as  have  been  shewn  to  hurt  religious  sentiments. 

1.  Those  whose  business  it  is  to  frame  any  body  of  doc 
trines,  or  forms  of  devotion,  ceremonies,  &c.  might  contribute 
a  good  deal  towards  uniting  men,  and  keeping  them  united,  by 
being  discreet  in  their  expressions,  and  liberal  in  their  notions  ; 
not  encouraging  contracted  ideas,  but  the  most  enlarged  and 
comprehensive.  2.  When  those  who  had  framed  doctrines,  &c. 
had  been  too  confined  in  their  notions,  separations  and  hurtful 


III.iv.4.] 


UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE. 


359 


II.  dissensions  might  sometimes  be  avoided  by  moderation  in  en 
forcing  or  carrying  into  execution.  3.  Some  good  might  fol 
low  from  prudence  in  the  public  teachers,  particularly  in  choos 
ing  such  topics1  as  were  least  likely  to  give  offence,  4.  Sepa 
rations  and  hurtful  dissensions  might  be  avoided  by  patience, 
forbearance,  and  candour,  on  the  part  of  private  individuals. 
When  any  thing  occurred,  in  a  religious  assembly,  which  they 
wished  to  have  been  omitted,  as  bearing  hard  on  their  private 
opinions,  they  might  be  contented  to  suspend  their  assent  and 
concurrence  for  a  time ;  as  is  done  in  the  Church  of  England 
by  some,  when  the  Athanasian  Creed  is  read,  or  the  Com- 
mination. 

It  could  not  but  tend  to  keep  men  united  in  society,  if  it 
was  generally  considered,  by  all  ranks  and  orders,  what  great 
30  force  there  is  in  speaking  alike ;  how  much  it  contributes  either 
to  make  men  think  alike,  or  to  forget  that  they  differ,  which 
comes  much  to  the  same  thing  in  the  present  case.  Such  is  the 
habitual  connexion  between  our  words  and  ideas,  that  those 
who  use  the  same  words  cannot  easily  persuade  themselves  that 
they  have  not  the  same  ideas.  Sometimes  this  connexion  is  an 
evil,  when  disputes  want  deciding,  and  you  wish  to  shew  that 
the  same  words  are  used  in  different  senses;  but  here  it  would 
be  a  good. 

Archbishop  Sharp  shews2,  that  if  men  would  speak  alike 
they  would  ere  long  find  that  they  had  already  thought  alike ; 
and  that  they  had  been  hindered  from  perceiving  it  by  different 
modes  of  expression,  and  by  the  different  points  of  view  in 
which  they  had  placed  the  same  thought. 

Dr.  Powell  opens  his  second  Discourse  with  a  remark  to 
our  purpose;  and  the  earnestness  of  St.  Paul  in  his3  text 
should  not  pass  unnoticed.  One  of  the  Fathers  asks1,  rogo 
vos,  cum  sensu  incolumes  sitis,  cur  vocibus  insanitis?  Those 
whom  he  addresses  might  be  safe  as  to  their  meaning,  if  they 
did  not  materially  differ  from  each  other  :  some  difference  it  is 
evident  they  had. 

We  have  before5  mentioned,  from  Mosheim,  that  the  fol 
lowers  and  opposers  of  Nestorius  held  opinions  the  same  in 
effect. 


1  Dr.  Balguy  allows  this,  Disc.  vii. 
p.  118. 

2  Vol.  i.  Serm.  i.  3d  rule.    This  is  not 
the  expression  of  Abp.  Sharp,  but  what 
he  says  shews  this.  3  1  Cor.  i.  10. 


4  Vigilius  ad  Eutych.  L.   2.  quoted 
in  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Art.  2,  p.  141, 
fol. 

5  B.  II.  chap.  v.  sect.  3;  or  Mosheim, 
cent.  5.  2.  5.  9.  vol.  n.  8vo,  p.  70. 


360  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  [Ill.iv.  5,  6. 

5.  As  what  has  here  been  offered,  or  recommended,  may  be  II. 
thought  more  difficult  in  practice  than  it  really  is,  it  may  be 
proper  to  mention  a  few  instances. 

In  primitive  times,  though   men  had  different  ideas  when  31 
they1  said  that  Christ  was  the  Logos,  yet  they  called  him  so, 
and  agreed  in  expression  as  if  they  had  agreed  in  idea  ;   so  that 
no  dissension  ensued. 

The  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes  called  Christ  "  the  Son  of 
God2,"  but  in  different  senses. 

Some  persons  understand  the  petition  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
"  deliver  us  from  evil,"  as  if  the  evil  were  natural  evil,  con 
tradistinguished  to  temptation  or  moral  evil ;  others  as  if  evil 
meant  the  evil  one,  or  Satan  ;  yet  these  join  in  the  prayer  with 
out  inconvenience3. 

Bishop  Burnet,  speaking4  of  those  who  held  different 
opinions  concerning  predestination,  adds,  "  how  much  soever 
they  may  differ  and  dispute  in  the  schools,  their  worship  being 
the  same,  they  do  all  join  in  it."  He  tells  us  also  that  the 
Lutherans  and  Calvinists  agree  in  "  acts  of  ivorship'1''  with  re 
gard  to  the  Eucharist,  though  they  differ  in  opinion  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  Christ  is  present. 

Clement  the  Ninth  made  peace  in  his  church  by  only  sub 
stituting  the  words  sincerely ',  in  a  declaration  of  faith,  for  the 
words  purely^  and  simply.  The  question  related  to  the 
Divine  decrees,  and  influence  on  the  human  will.  In  such 
questions  as  the  three  last  referred  to,  if  dispute  begins,  there 
is  nothing  likely  to  end  it ;  therefore  discretion  should  be  used 
to  prevent  its  beginning.  At  such  a  time  the  alternative  is, 
perpetual  peace  or  perpetual  discord  ;  or,  in  effect,  perpetual 
encouragement  or  perpetual  discouragement  of  religious  prin 
ciples. 

6.  One  thing  which  has  stood  in  the  way  of  such  unity  of  32 
doctrine  as  we  are  treating  of,  is  theright  of  private  judgment ; 
the  defence  of  which  is  always  very  popular.     On  this  right 
there  has  been  much  unsatisfactory  arguing.     Some  have  argued 

as  if  this  right  was  always  infringed  when  men  were  required 
to  submit  to  the  rules  of  the  society  to  which  they  belonged  ; 
though  those  men  enjoy  the  greatest  possible  freedom  who  live 


1  See  Michaelis's  Introd.  Lect.    sect. 
100.  end.  Quarto. 

2  See  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  541, 
transl.  from  Beausobre. 

3  People  difler  about  charily  covering 


sins,    yet    worship    together,    and    use 
prayers,  &c.  concerning  charity. 

4  Pref.  to  Art.  p.  17  and  18,  tfvo. 

5  Voltaire's  Louis  XIV.  Jansenisme, 
p.  2/f!,  12mo. 


Ill.iv.  ?.]  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  361 

II.  in  well-ordered  society:  (Dr.  Balguy,  p.  121.) — some,  as  if  it 
was  violated  when  men  were  refused  as  ministers  in  certain 
churches  whose  doctrines  they  would  not  teach  ;  that  is,  werepro- 

hibited  in  certain  societies  from  teaching  their  own  opinions: 

some,  as  if  no  man  could  have  right  of  private  judgment  who 
judged  it  best  to  act  after  the  opinion  of  another.  But  such 
reasoning  seems  subversive  of  all  religious  society  ;  nay,  of  all 
social  action  whatsoever.  Are  the  rights  of  private  judgment 
violated  because  a  man  cannot  speak  as  long  as  he  pleases  in 
certain  clubs  ?  or  because  a  farming  servant  may  not  use  a 
drill-plough?  or  because  a  messenger  is  forbidden  to  deliver  any 
message  but  that  which  his  employer  sends? 

Neal,  in  his  History  of  the  Puritans,  has  something  upon 
the  right  of  private  judgment,  which  seems  to  me  inapplicable 
to  religious  society.  (Vol.  i.  4to,  p.  161.)  Is  each  man  to  wor 
ship  alone  ?  are  a  thousand  men  to  worship,  each  in  his  own 
way,  and  call  themselves  a  society?  a  church?  Suppose  a 
man  to  speak  in  favour  of  private  judgment  about  the  diseases 
of  the  body,  it  would  be  immediately  asked,  do  you  mean  that 
no  man  shall  follow  the  judgment  of  a  physician?  that  every 
shopkeeper  shall  dissect  ?  every  farmer  study  the  materia  me- 
dica  ?  chemistry,  botany,  &c.  ?  No  one  would  think  it  reason- 

33  able.  Therefore  it  is  not  merely  truth  and  equity  that  those 
persons  aim  at  who  plead  for  private  judgment  in  religion 
There  is  either  interest  or  ambition  at  the  bottom,  though  they 
may  not  know  it;  or  a  plan  of  evading  duties,  and  indulging 
in  vice  ;  or  of  recommending  particular  alterations  under  gene 
ral  expressions  of  liberty  and  right6.  Any  one  who  is  really 
desirous  of  keeping  clear  of  error  must  be  aware,  when  he  hears 
encomiums  spoken  generally  of  religious  liberty,  that  they  may 
mean  no  more  than  liberty  to  change  a  present  establishment 
into  a  new  one. 

7-  Another  thing  which  has  been  a  great  hinderance  to 
mens  acquiescing,  in  the  kind  of  situation  here  recommended, 
is  the  notion,  that  establishments,  by  cramping  men's  free 
dom  of  inquiry,  prevent  improvement ;  that  they  are  modes 
of  tyranny  exercised  by  priests ;  and  that  under  tyrants  no 
powers  of  improving  can  be  exerted.  Whereas,  establishments 

with  their  own  principles,  generally  ex 
pressed.  See  Dr.  Balguy,  pp.  273,  2Jtt, 
279,  and  the  opening  of  my  5th  of  No 
vember  Sermon. 


r>  I  have  heard  Unitarians  speak  much 
of  liberty,  right  of  private  judgment,  &c.; 
but,  on  asking  them  whether  Papists 
were  to  be  free  from  all  tests  and  re 
straints,  I  never  found  them  consistent 


362  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  [III.  iv.  7. 

seem  as  if  they  were  in  reality  the  best  means  of  improvement.  II. 
They  may  have  been  abused,  and  may  be  liable  to  abuse. 
Bigotry  and  priestcraft  may  have  tyrannized  over  consciences, 
and  kept  them  confined  in  fetters,  though  even  this  has 
been  chiefly  in  times  of  ignorance,  when  priests  possessed 
most  sorts  of  useful  knowledge  in  being,  and  the  people  were 
very  little  able  to  guide  themselves  ;  but  now  no  mischief  of 
this  kind  is  to  be  apprehended  from  them.  Suppose  no 
establishment,  all  is  confusion,  from  which  no  improvement 
can  arise ;  suppose  an  establishment,  all  is  orderly  and  quiet : 
the  people  follow  their  several  occupations,  and  improvement  34 
comes  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  best  qualified  to  pro 
mote  it.  Some  of  these  may  be  too  forward  to  reform,  others 
too  backward ;  but,  when  improvement  has  been  made  by 
the  most  enlightened,  it  will  be  sure  to  descend  to  the  people, 
as  they  are  able  to  bear  it;  a  little  sooner  or  a  little  later. 
Other  things  are  under  establishments  as  well  as  religion1; 
they  improve,  and  the  more  for  being  so;  why  may  not  re 
ligion  ?  In  physic,  men  have  kept  observing  received  maxims 
in  most  things,  and  improving  them  in  something.  Heat,  in 
the  small-pox  and  fevers,  used  to  be  prescribed  generally  ;  but 
compliance  with  established  rules  has  not  prevented  their  being 
improved.  Those  established  rules  were  always  capable  of 
improvement;  but  to  follow  them  was  always  better  than 
to  set  them  wholly  aside.  I  have  met  with  persons  who 
look  upon  the  Newtonian  philosophy  as  only  established  for 
a  time ;  who  think  that  it  will  be  superseded,  as  the  Cartesian 
has  been.  It  is  needless  to  enter  into  the  question.  Sup 
posing  this  not  improbable,  yet  still  I  should  now  say,  study 
the  Newtonian  philosophy ;  it  is  the  established  philosophy : 
whatever  improvements  it  may  hereafter  receive,  you  will 
profit  most  by  learning  what  it  teaches:  if  you  neglect  it, 
you  will,  comparatively,  know  nothing.  The  same  kind  of 
reasoning  might  be  applied  to  agriculture.  If  I  wanted  to 
educate  a  person  even  for  the  very  purpose  of  making  im 
provements,  I  would  put  him  first  under  some  steward  or 
farmer,  who  followed  established  rules.  Established  agriculture 

7  o 

cannot  be  improved  till  it  is  practised  ;   neither  can  established 
virtue,  or  religion.      In  religion,  men  have  or  affect  something 
of  a  false  pride  or  a  false  shame  about   being  directed;    but 
there  seems  no  reason  for  being  more  ashamed  of  trusting  to  35 
1  Book  II.  chap.  iv.  sect.  4. 


III.  iv.  8.]  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  363 

II.  a  priest  than  a  coblcr ;  from  whence  it  is  natural  again  to 
conclude,  that,  when  men  are  more  ashamed,  it  is  not  merely 
through  reason.  The  result  of  what  has  been  said  seems 
strongly  in  favour  of  religious  establishments. 

8.  It  follows,  from  this  view  of  religious  establishments,  that 
a  man  may,  reasonably  and  lawfully,  live  under  any  one,  and 
conform  to  it,  who  is  not  against  reforming  it,  and  who  allows 
that  it  has  imperfections;  for  one  use  of  establishments  is,  to 
promote  improvements,  or  reformations,  with  the  least  disturb 
ance  possible. 

But  moreover,  many  persons  have  two  capacities  to  im 
prove  in,  indeed  all  those  have  who  are  likely  to  improve 
establishments— those  of  the  man  and  the  philosopher.  As  a 
religious  philosopher,  it  has  just  now  appeared,  that  I  may  im 
prove  myself  under  an  establishment ;  but,  as  a  man,  I  stand 
no  chance  of  improving  without  one.  My  principles  can  in  no 
other  way  have  any  likelihood  of  being  nourished  and  supported: 
were  I  ever  so  desirous,  in  the  character  of  a  philosopher,  to 
reform  and  improve  the  establishment  to  which  I  belong,  yet 
I  must  act  under  it  regularly,  as  a  man.  Nay,  I  must  take 
care,  while  I  am  pursuing  improvement  in  the  former  capacity, 
that  I  do  not  forget  rny  interests  in  the  latter.  A  man  may 
look  so  much  beyond  his  establishment,  as  to  lose  a  great 
deal  of  private  improvement ;  and  indeed  he  may  so  give 
himself  up  to  his  private  improvement,  and  confine  his  views  so 
so  much  to  his  present  establishment,  as  never  to  improve  that. 
But  suppose  a  man  had  not  these  views  to  improvement, 
in  becoming  a  member  of  religious  society,  but  only  found 
himself  settled  in  an  establishment,  he  knew  not  why,  by 

36  birth,  education,  &c.  imperfections  in  it  would  not,  always  at 
least,  afford  any  good  reason  for  his  removing ;  yet,  whenever 
he  finds  an  imperfection,  he  must  wish  it  altered.  All  human 
institutions  will  be  imperfect2,  and  the  particular  regulations  of 
every  religious  society  are  human.  He  is  under  establishments 
in  law  and  physic ;  these  are  imperfect,  but  that  is  no  good 
reason  for  throwing  them  aside.  Who  dare  break  through  all 
established  rules  of  what  we  call  fashion,  in  dress,  &c.  on  the 
plea  of  their  being  imperfect?  A  man  may  be  thoroughly 
convinced  that  it  is  absurd  to  cut  away  the  beard,  to  throw 5 


-  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  125.  Discourse  vii. 
3  "  In  the  days  of  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  the  Christians  thought  it  a  very 


horrible  thing  to  wear  false  hair ;  and 

Calvo  turpius  est  nihil  comato, 
said  Martial  to  Marinus,"  &c.  (Lib.  x. 

Epigr. 


364  UNITY    OF    DOCTRINE.  [III.iv.9. 

white  dust  into  the  hair,  and   use  a   tenacious  fluid  to   keep  II. 
it  there;   but  a  wise  man  will  judge,  that  more  good  will  arise 
from  compliance  than    from    singularity ;     yet,    at    the    same 
time  that  he   complies,  he   will  be  making  some  advances  to 
wards  reformation. 

Men  of  the  world  seem  very  unreasonable  in  not  submitting 
to  act  under  religious  establishments.  They  think  themselves 
above  it :  all  are  quacks  in  divinity.  Men  in  active  life  will 
talk  as  reformers,  lightly  and  frivolously ;  and  they  would  not 
scruple  to  undertake  the  task  of  reforming,  without  judgment, 
knowledge,  or  any  consistent  plan  ;  and  without  any  probability 
of  not  falling  into  great  errors.  AArould  they  not  act  more 
reasonably  if  they  conformed  to  establishments,  and  only  men 
tioned  their  ideas  of  improvement  to  those  who  were  prudent 
and  informed  enough  to  judge  of  them  maturely  ?  only  press 
ing  them  if  they  saw  that  they  were  opposed  more  through  37 
indolence  than  reason. 

9.  When  a  body  of  doctrine  is  to  be  fixed  upon,  in  order 
that  unity  of  teaching  may  have  place,  it  may  happen  that 
several  doctrines  will  be  set  up  or  proposed,  in  competition 
with  each  other.  In  this  case  it  may  sometimes  promote  unity 
to  have  different  parties  enter  into  a  compromise.  It  seems  odd 
at  first  that  men  should  presume  to  settle  truths,  as  if  they 
could  order  a  proposition  to  be  true  or  not  true,  as  they 
pleased ;  and  Mr.  Voltaire  ridicules  such  kind  of  compromise. 
Speaking  of  the  Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  and  of  one  Jesuit 
Achilles  Gaillard1  in  particular,  he  says,  "II  proposa  grave- 
ment  d\iccepter  la  predestination  gratuite,  a  condition  que  les 
Dominicains  admettraient  la  science2  moienne ;  ct  qu'on  ajuste- 
rait  ces  deux  syst ernes  comme  on  pom-rait."  This  at  first  has 
the  air  as  if  the  Jesuits  could  allow  predestination  to  be  true  in 
what  degree  they  chose,  and  in  like  manner  the  Jansenists  the 
doctrine  of  grace ;  but,  though  this  might  be  ridiculous  in 
theory,  yet  in  practice  something  of  the  sort  might  reasonably 
take  place.  Suppose  the  Jesuits  not  to  allow  gratuitous  pre 
destination  in  their  private  opinion,  they  might  agree,  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  not  to  oppose  it,  or  require  subscriptions  or 
declarations  in  contradiction  to  it ;  and  so  might  the  Jansenists 

Epigr.   83.)   see  Taylor's  Ductor  dubi- 
tantium,  3.  1.  5.  p.  434. 

Did  not  Charles  the  Second  write  some 
letter  against  perukes  to  the  University 
of  Cambridge  ? 


1  Siecle  de   Louis  XIV.  Janscnisme, 
not    far    from    the    beginning,    p.  263, 
12mo. 

2  For    scientia    media    see    Vitringa 
Theol.  vol.  i.  De  attributis  (Sapientia). 


III.  V.I.  ]  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION'.  365 

II.  do  with  regard  to  the  Jesuitical  notion  about  the  assistance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  And  accordingly,  in  consequence  of  this 
38  compromise,  we  are  told,  "3On  composa  urx  corps  de  doctrine 
qui  contena  presque  les  deux  partis." 

Allied  to  mutual  concessions,  is  obedience  to  injunctions  of 
the  civil  power  to  put  an  end  to  disputes  on  speculative  doc 
trines.  In  this,  the  open  profession  and  maintaining  of  opinion 
is  sacrificed  to  good  order,  and  to  that  good  turn  of  mind  which 
arises  from  order  and  peace.  It  might  seem  as  if  no  earthly 
governor  had  a  power  to  silence  the  preacher  of  truth — as  if 
he  might  follow  the  example  of  l Peter  and  John,  who  preferred 
the  command  of  God  to  that  of  the  council ;  but  the  business 
of  the  ordinary  teacher,  in  the  cases  we  speak  of,  is  not  to 
propagate  a  system  of  religion  like  the  Christian ;  nor  has 
he  miraculous  power  to  shew  that  he  is  to  judge  for  himself. 
He  should  think  what  is  the  least  evil,  to  obey  the  magistrate, 
or  to  destroy  the  peace  of  the  church. 

Injunctions  of  the  kind  we  speak  of  are,  that  of  Charles5 
the  First,  prefixed  to  our  Articles ;  and  those  of  several  popes, 
who  endeavoured  to  bring  the  Jansenists  and  their  oppon 
ents  to  teach  the  common  moral  duties.  The  title  of  our 
Articles  shews  that  they  were  made  "for  avoiding  of  diversities 
of  opinions,  and  for  the  establishing  of  consent  touching  true 
religion." 

Dr.  Balguy  should  be  read — particularly  his  seventh 
Discourse. 


39  CHAPTER    V. 

OF    ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 

1.  WE  have  now,  according  to  our  plan,  shewn,  that  the 
way  to  promote  right  conduct  is,  to  study  the  nature  of  senti- 
ments,  religious  ones  in  particular ;  and  that  the  way  to  pro 
mote  good  sentiments  is,  to  maintain  unity  of  doctrine.  The 
last  thing  is  to  shew,  that  the  way  to  maintain  unity  of  doctrine 
is,  to  require,  from  those  who  are  to  teach,  some  kind  of  assent 
to  that  which  is  to  be  taught. 

4  Acts  iv.  19.  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  119. 

5  That    this  was   by   Charles   I.    see 
pamphlet  called  UA   Diss.  on  the  17th 
Art."  &c.    Oxf.  1773. 


3  See  Voltaire's  Jansenisme,  in  Louis 

XIV.  towaxls  end,  p.  2!H>.  12mo Dr. 

lialguy  allows  of  "mutual  concessions:" 
p.  125,  in  Disc.  vii. 


366  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [III.  V.  2. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  shew  that  such  assent  is  need-  II. 
less1;  if  it  is  so,  it  must  be  owned  that  they  do  wrong  who 
insist  upon  it.  The  Remonstrants  in  Holland2,  a  very  re 
spectable  set  of  people,  made  one  attempt  of  this  sort;  the 
ministers  of  our  own  church  made  another,  not  many  years 
ago :  but  I  consider  both  as  mere  expedients  of  reformers, 
aiming  to  change  particular  doctrines,  not  as  coming  from  ob 
jections  of  mere  reason  to  all  articles.  If  reformers  can  get  rid 
of  one  establishment,  they  can  more  easily  introduce3  another ; 
and  I  have  no  idea  that  either  the  Dutch  Remonstrants  or  our 
own  countrymen  would  have  gone  on  without  one,  or  without  40 
declarations  on  the  part  of  the  teachers,  for  any  length  of 
time4. 

2.  Not  but  there  are  some  specious  things  to  be  said  in  fa 
vour  of  leaving  men  at  liberty.  There  are  some  suppositions 
on  which,  and  some  circumstances  in  which,  assent  to  doctrines 
would  be  needless ;  and  we  shall  not  go  to  the  bottom  of  the 
subject  if  we  do  not  inquire  what  they  are.  Till  it  is  shewn 
that  none  of  them  can  be  expected  to  be  realized  in  the  present 
state  of  things,  they  will  be  perpetually  urged  as  objections  to 
our  manner  of  managing  religious  society.  Besides,  to  con 
ceive  different  cases  must  enlarge  the  mind,  and  let  us  see  the 
nature  of  all  religious  establishments,  without  the  peculiarities 
of  any  one.  If  we  do  not  think  in  this  way,  we  do. not  dis 
tinguish  between  peculiarities  and  those  properties  which  are 
inherent  in  the  nature  of  religious  society  as  such. 

Dr.  Powell  says5,  very  sensibly,  "Since  it  cannot  be  ima 
gined  that  men  should  explain  with  clearness,  or  enforce  with 
earnestness,  or  defend  with  accuracy  of  judgment,  such  doc 
trines  as  they  do  not  believe,  the  Church  requires  of  those  who 
are  appointed  to  teach  religion  a  solemn  declaration  of  their 
faith."  When  Dr.  Powell  says,  "  It  cannot  be  imagined"  he 
does  not  say  it  is  impossible;  he  reasons  from  experience, — his 
conclusion  is  probable.  Dr.  Balguy,  in  that  admirable  compo 
sition  his  fifth  Charge,  does,  as  I  conceive,  the  same.  This 


1  See  end  of  Jefferson's  Notes  on  Vir 
ginia.     The  experiment  is  not  yet  fully 
tried  there ;  and  whilst  it  is  trying,  it 
comes  under  an  observation  to  be  made 
in  this  Chapter.     Note,  p.  45. 

2  See  Dr.  Jortin's  Six   Dissertations, 
pp.  104,  105.    The  Synod  of  Dort  was  in 
1  HI  it  and  1619. 

J  Were  ever   any  persons   known  to 


wish  to  throw  off  subscriptions  to  any 
doctrines,  who  meant  to  continue  the 
profession  of  the  same  doctrines?  these 
would  be  the  persons  to  be  heard  against 
ttdaoriptions. 

4  Oliver  Cromwell  was  for  making  an 
ecclesiastical  establishment,  or  national 
church,  at  last.    See  Hume.  A.  i).  Ki.'ili. 

5  Disc.  p.  33, 


III.  V.  3,  4.]  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  367 

II.  method  was  best  suited  to  their  purpose:  we  have  only  to  hope 
that  our  plan  may  be  suitable  to  a  course  of  Lectures.  I  know 
not  that  there  is  amongst  us  any  difference  of  opinion. 

3.    The  most  obvious,  though  not  the  most  probable,  sup- 

41  position  is,  that  there  was   no  material  difference  of  opinion 
amongst  the  students  of  religion  in  any  number  of  men  who 
lived  together ;    none   which  could  occasion   any   dissensions 
hurtful  to  religious  sentiments;  none  which  seemed  to  the  per 
sons  concerned  inconsistent  with  the  carrying  on  of  a  religious 
society.     This  may  seem  too  improbable  a  supposition  to  bear 
mentioning ;   but  yet  it  should  be  made,  as  no  assent  to  doc 
trines  need  be  given  in  such  a  case :  and  we  should  observe, 
that  it  would  come  to  much  the  same  thing  if  there  was  great 
moderation  about  the  different  modes  of  expressing  those  doc 
trines  which  we  cannot  comprehend ;  for  it  is  chiefly  about 
these0  that  any   dissensions  arise,   which  disturb  the  peace  of 
the  Church,  so  as  to  defeat  the  ends  of  religious  society.      We 
and  the  Socinians  are  said  to  differ,  but  about  what  ?  not  about 
morality,   or  natural  religion,   or  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Christian  religion  :  we  differ  only  about  what  we  do  not  under 
stand  ;   and  about  what  is  to  be  done  on  the  part  of  God ;   and, 
if  we  allowed  one  another  to  use  expressions  at  will,  (and  what 
great  matter  could  that  be  in  what  might  almost  be  called  un 
meaning    expressions?)   we    need    never   be   upon    our  guard 
against  each  other.      A  heathen   Socrates,   I  think,  would  be 
surprised  at  those  who  agreed  in   so  many  things,  requiring 
declarations  and  subscriptions  in  order  to  exclude  one  another. 
He  would  judge  that  we  might  worship  together,  and  even  have 
the  same  body  of  doctrine ;   each  party  thinking  freely  in  pri 
vate,   and  using  discreet  expressions  in  public7. 

42  4.    The  second  supposition  on  which  no  solemn  assent  need 
be  given,  or  no  article  subscribed,  is,  that  no  disturbance  has 
happened.     Mere  apprehension  of  the  possibility  of  disturbance, 
without   experience,    is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  laying  re 
straints  :  by  disturbance  we  mean,  such  as  would  prevent  the 
growth  of  religious  sentiments.     Our  Church  has  not  published 
any  new   articles   since  1562,  when  the   national  religion   was 
changed,  (and  then  they  cut  off  some  few  of  1552,)  yet,  if  they 


6  Chap.  iv.  sect.  4. 

7  The  Epistle  of  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  to  the  heads  of  the  parties  when 
Arianism  first  broke  out,  does  him  ho 
nour.    It  is  easily  found  in  Eusebius's 


Life  of  Constantine,  or  in  Socrates's 
Ecclesiastical  History.  Lardner  com 
mends  it,  Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  188  and 
200.  It  is  mentioned  again,  in  our  B.  IV. 
Art.  1.  sect,  lo,  end. 


368  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [III.   V.  5,  6. 

had  given  way  to  every  apprehension  of  disturbance,  they  pro-  II. 
bably  would  have  framed  some  new  Confession.  Nevertheless, 
though  mere  suspicion  is  not^  sufficient  to  justify  restraints, 
strong  marks  of  a  turbulent  disposition  may ;  such  as  in  law 
are,  with  regard  to  treason,  called  overt  acts}.  A  man  may 
not  attack  an  ill-looking  person  whom  he  meets,  merely  because 
he  is  afraid  of  being  attacked  by  him  ;  yet  he  may  take  some 
signs  as  proofs  of  an  hostile  intention.  If  he  stays  till  he  has 
certainty  of  an  attack,  self-defence  may  be  impossible. 

5.  A  third  supposition,  on  which  assent  to  doctrines  need 
not  be  required,  is,  that  there  were  some  mechanical  way  of 
spreading  those  which  were  established.  Homilies  are  some 
thing  of  this  sort,  supposing  them  wholly  to  exclude  preaching. 
If  the  whole  duty  of  a  teacher  consisted  in  reading  an  homily, 
it  would  be  matter  of  little  moment  whether  his  opinions  ex 
actly  coincided  with  those  he  read.  And  it  would  be  much 
the  same,  if  he  would  look  upon  himself  as  a  mere  instrument 
in  the  hand  of  the  Church  ;  or  as  having  no  concern  with  truth, 
as  not  being  accountable  for  falsehood,  in  the  mere  character  of 
a  teacher.  This  need  only  relate  to  the  more  obscure  doctrines; 
in  points  not  controverted  he  might  be  warm  and  earnest.  I 
have  sometimes  told  my  congregation,  in  sermons,  that  I  speak  43 
as  a  minister,  and  not  as  a  man ;  that,  though  I  believe  the 
doctrines  I  preach,  I  deliver  them  not  as  my  own,  but  as  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  :  and  on  this  account  such  doctrines  de 
mand  greater  attention. 

It  would  come  to  much  the  same  thing  if  teachers  agreed  in 
judgment  to  what  has  been  here  laid  down,  and  looked  upon 
themselves  as  bound  to  promote  unity  of  doctrine — of  that 
doctrine  which  was  prescribed  by  the  authority  under  which 
they  taught:  if  they  were  convinced,  that  peace  of  mind,  by 
producing  good  sentiments,  was  of  greater  consequence  than 
the  difference  between  this  mysterious  opinion  and  that,  whilst 
it  generated  discord  and  disunion. 

6.  If  then  we  find  no  great  difference  of  opinion  ,-  or,  if 
men  suffer  one  another  to  express  themselves  as  they  please 
about  doctrines  above  the  reach  of  man  ;  or,  if  difference  of 
opinion  occasions  no  disturbance  or  confusion  ;  or,  if  mechani 
cal  ways  of  spreading  doctrines  are  contrived  and  enjoined,  or 
teachers  turn  themselves  into  mere  instruments ;  or,  lastly,  if 
teachers  highly  esteem  unity  of  doctrine,  and  maintain  it  con- 

1  Blackstone,    Index,  Overt  act. 


III.  V.  6.]  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  3C9 

II.  scientiously  ; in  any  of  these  cases  assent  to  articles  of  re 
ligion  is  not  to  be  required.  Each  set  of  people  must  ask 
themselves,  therefore,  are  we  nearly  of  the  same  opinions?  do 
we  leave  men  to  express  themselves  as  they  please  about  myste 
ries?  have  we  any  mechanical  contrivances  for  teaching  what 
authority  prescribes  ?  do  teachers  consider  themselves  as  mere 
machines  in  the  hands  of  the  Church  ?  are  they  strongly  im 
pressed  with  the  infinite  importance  of  unity  of  doctrine? 
Upon  the  answers  which  we  are  able  to  give  to  these  questions 
must  our  conduct  depend,  in  particular  churches;  but  the 

44  actual  state  of  particular  churches  is  not  now  the  subject  of  our 
consideration.  One  word  may  be  said  on  the  expedient  of 
spreading  doctrines  by  means2  of  homilies.  It  seems  easy ;  but 
it  does  more  harm,  when  a  number  of  good  preachers  can  be 
had,  than  restraining  those  preachers  to  deliver  the  same  doc 
trine,  and  taking  the  security  of  their  private  judgment  that 
they  will  do  so.  There  would  be,  from  time  to  time,  if 
preachers  were  encouraged,  new  illustrations  of  virtue  and  re 
ligion — of  natural  religion  as  well  as  revealed  :  there  would 
be,  probably,  in  the  natural  course  of  improvement,  num 
berless  new  lights  thrown  upon  the  Scripture.  Now  the  con 
stant  use  of  homilies  would  preclude  all  this ;  and  to  reform 
them  would  be  nearly  as  difficult  as  to  reform  liturgy,  or 
articles,  even  though  they  would  become  insipid  by  frequent 
repetition. 

Dr.  Balguy  says3,  "  It  should  never  be  forgotten  by  mi 
nisters  that  they  are  subject  to  higher  authority.  They  are  to 
execute  law,  not  to  make  it."  And  afterwards4,  "  Every  word 
that  comes  from  our  mouths,  in  opposition  to  the  established 
faith,  is  a  violation  of  the  most  solemn  engagements,  and  an 
act  of  disobedience  to  lawful  authority."  Though  this  is  said 
with  particular  relation  to  the  Church  of  England,  in  which 
ministers  make  express  engagements,  yet  it  would  be  just, 
though  our  engagements  were  only  tacit  and  implied.  It 
expresses  perfectly  well  the  general  rights  of  religious  society 
over  its  ministers ;  but  rights  are  not  the  whole  matter.  On 
the  present  subject,  we  would  see  moreover  some  security  that 
such  rights  will  not  be  lost  or  violated.  The  kind  of  security 
to  be  required,  in  any  particular  case,  will  depend  upon  the 

4.1  answers  which  can  be  given  to  the  questions  just  now  proposed; 
but  something  may  be  observed  upon  general  considerations. 
-  .Mentioned  sect.  .').  .-.  I».  113,  Serm.  vii.  '  T.  111).     See  also  p.  11!!. 

VOL.  I.  24 


370 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[III.  v.  u\ 


If  a  new  religious  society  was  to  be  formed,  quite  as  a  res  II. 
Integra,  of  persons  well  disposed,  but  unconnected — if  they 
were  tolerably  well  informed,  though  some  body  of  doctrine 
should  be  constructed,  the  teachers  should  be  left  to  their  own 
consciences  to  deliver  it  faithfully.  And  this  should  continue 
till  some  abuses  should  arise,  which  were  likely  to  disturb 
mens  minds,  and  defeat  the  ends  of  religious  society1. 

But,  if  men  began  to  contend,  got  to  be  vehement,  to 
form  separate  parties,  to  prefer  men  of  their  own  religious 
persuasion,  even  in  civil  offices,  in  all  sorts  of  employments 
of  trust  or  profit,  to  exert  themselves  in  shewing  such  pre 
ference;  if  they  were  found  labouring  secretly  to  gain  proselytes, 
and  insinuating  themselves  amongst  those  whom  they  accounted 
enemies,  as  spies,  or  seducers ;  then  the  public  tranquillity,  and 
the  nature  of  religious  principles,  would  require  that  those  of 
one  party  should  be  rendered  discernible  from  those  of  another, 
by  certain  marks.  And,  as  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  any 
man  would  be  ashamed  of  his  own  opinion,  or  afraid  to  own  it, 
what  mode  of  distinguishing  religious  parties  could  be  so 
simple  and  natural  as  drawing  out  a  list  of  the  opinions  of 
one  or  more  parties,  and  asking  any  man,  who  seemed  likely 
to  occasion  any  disturbance  by  his  situation  or  employment, 
whether  those  opinions  were  his  ?  whether,  if  he  was  a  teacher, 
he  would  teach  those  opinions  ?  whether,  if  he  was  a  common 
man,  he  would  choose  to  be  ranked  with  such  as  held  those  46' 
opinions,  and  be  a  member  of  their  society  ? 

This  may  give  an  idea  of  what  might  occasion  articles  of 
religion  to  be  made,  and  assent  to  them  to  be  required.  One 
of  these  parties  might  perhaps  be  very  opulent,  another  very 
poor;  and,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  they  might  change 
situations  with  respect  to  wealth  and  poverty ;  but  all  this  is 
merely  incidental,  and  does  not  at  all  affect  our  reasoning. 


1  This  is  the  observation  promised  in 
note  to  sect.  1,  about  America.  Let  the 
experiment,  of  requiring  no  judgment  on 
the  doctrines  to  be  taught,  be  tried  there; 
but  let  us  not  be  impatient  whilst  we  are 


watching  the  issue ;  nor,  if  the  spirit  of 
party  suffers  it  to  succeed  there  for  a 
considerable  time,  let  us  be  rash  in  con 
cluding  our  situation  to  be  exactly  simi 
lar  to  theirs. 


III.  vi.]  ARTICLES     LONG    CONTINUED.  371 

II. 

47  CHAPTER    VI. 

OF    ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION,     WHICH     HAVE    BEEN    CONTINUED 

FOR    A    LENGTH    OF     TIME,    WHILST    OTHER    THINGS 

HAVE    BEEN    CHANGING. 

WE  have  now  completed  our  plan.  We  have  proposed 
what  is  the  main  consideration  in  religious  societies  of  modern 
times ;  that  is  to  say,  assent  to  Articles  of  Religion.  We  have 
shewn,  from  the  nature  of  veracity,  what  is  the  nature  of  such 
assent ;  and,  from  the  general  nature  of  religious  society,  when 
such  assent  may  be  requisite2 — when  it  may  be  dispensed  with. 

But  what  has  been  advanced  in  this  Book,  has  all  gone  upon 
the  supposition,  that  articles  of  religion  are  composed  at  the 
time  they  are  assented  to  ;  whereas,  in  fact,  there  are  so  many 
difficulties  in  forming  a  body  of  articles,  that,  once  made,  the 
same  continues  for  a  great  number  of  ages.  And  yet,  in  a 
great  number  of  ages,  great  changes,  of  one  sort  or  other,  gene 
rally  take  place.  If  the  faculties  of  the  mind  are  well  employ 
ed,  great  improvements ;  if  otherwise,  great  abuses,  founded 
on  great  errors. 

If  the  forms  to  be  assented  to  continue  the  same,  while 
many  things  relating  to  them  change,  the  nature  of  the  assent 
will  change ;  and  so  may  its  expediency. 

Something  therefore  remains  to  be  said,  on  supposition  of 
long  continuance  of  articles  of  religion  ;  and  the  whole  of  what 
is  to  come,  in  the  present  Book,  will  consist  of  observations 

48  either  arising  immediately  out  of  such  supposition,  or  in  some 
measure  connected  with  it.      Other  subjects  may  be  introduced 
which    might,    in   part,    be   treated    independently,    but    none 
which  will  not  be  treated  to  more  advantage  by  being  made  to 
belong  to  it. 

It  may  be  proper  to  suggest  a  caution,  that  every  thing 
that  is  said  be  not  applied,  or  thought  applicable,  to  the 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  in  particular.  I  am  not  the 
person  who  would  insinuate  that  any  of  our  own  Articles  stand 
in  need  of  any  thing  beyond  plain  interpretation;  but  some 
may  think  that  some  of  them  do :  and  it  cannot  but  be  useful 
to  those  who  subscribe  Articles  made  230  years  ago,  to  pursue 
a  train  of  general  reasoning,  concerning  the  effect  of  antiquity 
on  fixed  forms,  whether  any  one  applies  it  to  his  own  forms 
or  not. 

'-'  Chap.  v. 

24 — 2 


372  ARTICLES    LONG    CONTINUED  [III.  \'i.  1,  2. 

The  foundation  of  every  thing,  which  I  have  to  observe  II 
on    this  subject,  is   what   I    would   call   a   tacit  reformation. 
Let  us  therefore  examine  the  nature  of  that. 

1.  Our  first   step  may  be,  to  take  a  general  idea  of  the 
effects   of   age  in   articles   of  religion.     It    has  appeared,    in 
the  first  Book,1  that  few  if  any  propositions  are  strictly  uni 
versal  :    things    expressed    as  if  they  were   universally  meant, 
have  generally  some  particular  references  by  which   they  are 
to  be  limited.    Now,  when  propositions  are  new,  these  references 
are  perfectly  intelligible ;  nay,  they  seem  to  be  no  references  at 
all ;  the  mind  makes  them  so  easily,  as  not  to  be  conscious  of 
making  them.    But,  when  the  propositions  are  old,  the  circum 
stances   to   which   reference   is  made  are  no  longer   seen  ;   the 
references  therefore  are  lost,  and  the  propositions  come  to  be 
interpreted  in  a  more  strict  and  literal  sense,  with  fewer  excep 
tions  and  limitations  than  any  one  would  have  interpreted  them  4<J 
with,  at  the  time  they  were  made.     Or,  if  it  is  seen  that  the 
strict,  literal,  universal  sense  could  not  originally  be  the  true 
one,  and  allowances  are  made  on  that  account,  such  allowances 
must  be  made  at  random,  and  must  often  be  wrongly  imagined 

or  conjectured ;  still,  therefore,  the  old  references  are  different 
from  the  new;  and  therefore  the  old  sense.  Instances  would 
illustrate  this  to  those  who  thought  it  obscure;  but  in  the  first 
Book  so  many  were  brought,  that  I  am  unwilling  to  add 
more. 

But,  moreover,  supposing  the  propositions  themselves  to 
continue  intelligible,  and  to  be  understood  in  their  right 
sense;  yet  still  changes  in  other  things,  in  other  parts  of 
knowledge,  would  set  them  in  a  different  point  of  view. 
There  is  such  a  connection  and  affinity  between  different  parts 
of  knowledge,  that  whatever  much  affects  one  part  will,  in  some 
degree,  affect  another. 

2.  Besides  these  changes  in  the  sense  of  expressions  which 
arise  in  a  general  way,  in    the   natural  course  of  things,   we 
may,  without  improbability,  suppose  some  particular  researches 
to  bring  to  light  some  particular  error  in  the  forms  to  which  as 
sent  is  to  be  given,  or  which  are  used  in  public  worship.      This 
might   happen  from    the   study  of  manuscripts,  or  other  parts 
of  criticism.      It  seems  really  to  have  happened  with  regard  to 
1  Pet.  iii.   1.9;   which,  in  the  third  Article  of  the  Church  of 
England,  as  made  in  1552,  is  interpreted  of  Christ's  descent  into 

1   Chan.  x. 


III.  vi.  3.]        WHILST    OTHER    THINGS    HAVE    CHANGED. 

II.  hell.  It  did  indeed  happen  that  the  reformed  doctrine  of  the 
English  Church  was  not  finally  settled  in  1552;  and,  therefore, 
ten  years  afterwards,  this  Article  was  altered ;  but  we  may 
easily  suppose  such  alteration  not  to  have  taken  place ;  and,  in 
truth,  this  part  of  Scripture  is  still  used  as  the  Epistle  for 

50  Easter  Even.      If  there  is  any  particular  propriety  in  using  it 
on  that  day,  the  same  construction  must  remain. — Denouncing 
sentence  of  eternal  damnation,  upon  unworthy  receivers  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  is  now  acknowledged  to  be  an  error,  but  the 
forms  are  not  changed.     Praying  that  magistrates  may  main 
tain  truth  (as  we  do  in  our  Litany)    was  best  suited  to  times 
prior  to  the  settlement  of  toleration2. 

When  these  things  happen,  what  is  to  be  done?  An  un 
thinking  man  would  say,  repeal,  alter,  when  you  find  errors. 
This  is  the  most  obvious  measure  to  suggest,  but  it  is  often 
extremely  difficult  to  practise ;  so  difficult,  that  it  may  be  best 
in  many,  nay  in  most  instances,  to  let  the  errors  stand  as  they 
did,  in  the  letter,  and  only  depart  from  them  in  the  spirit. 

3.  The  reasons  for  this  had  better  make  a  separate  con 
sideration.  Here  we  will  observe,  that,  when  forms  are  left  in 
words,  but  taken  away  or  altered  in  meaning,  it  may  be  either 
said  that  they  grow  obsolete,  or  that  the  law  which  enjoins 
them  is  tacitly  repealed.  And  we  will  add,  that  a  tacit  repeal 
is  of  equal3  validity  with  an  express  one.  The  authority  of 
the  lawgiver  is  on  the  same  footing  with  that  of  the  master,  or 
proprietor :  it  may  be  relaxed  in  different  degrees,  it  may  be 
withdrawn  totally,  and  yet  in  silence ;  and  when  authority  of 
any  kind  is  withdrawn,  in  any  way,  subjection,  or  obligation 
to  obey,  can  no  longer  subsist.  Right  to  command  may  be 
relinquished  in  the  same  manner  with  right  to  possess  or  en 
joy  ;  and,  with  right,  must  cease  its  correlative,  obligation. 
That  which  is  relinquished  requires  no  attention,  as  a  matter 
of  duty. 

51  But  the  reasons  for  leaving  errors  uncorrected,   and  suffer 
ing  forms  to  grow  obsolete,   or  repealing  only  tacitly  the  laws 
which  enjoin  them,  are  to  be  considered  more  particularly.      It 
must  not  be  understood   that  this  method   is  recommended  as 
positive  good  in  itself  :  it  is  only  recommended  as  negative  good, 
or   as   the   least  evil.      It  occasions  the  least   interruption   of 
peace,   and  therefore  of  religious  affections  and  principles.      It 

2  See    Dr.    Balguy,    opening    of    3d  |    this  Book. 
Charge:    and    Chap.   xiv.  sect.    11.    of!       y  My  Assize  Sermon,  p.  1. 


374  ARTICLES    LONU;     COXT1NUKD  [III.   vi.  .'5. 

seems  strictly  defensible  and  right,  and  capable  of  being  ex-  II. 
plained  to  those  who  have  scruples  about  its  rectitude.  Errors, 
of  the  kind  we  speak  of,  generally  make  part  of  a  system  ;  and 
the  authority  of  a  part  cannot  be  destroyed,  without  first  acting 
contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  whole  :  when  that  habitual 
veneration  for  the  system  of  doctrines,  on  which  religion  so 
much  depends,  must  be  broken  in  upon,  and  greatly  damaged. 
When  the  parts  of  any  machine  are  separated,  it  is  found 
that  taking  to  pieces  is  a  much  easier  work  than  putting  to 
gether.  And  the  difference  is  at  least  as  great  in  a  religious 
machine,  or  system,  where  every  part  may  be  changed,  as 
in  any  other.  It  has  been  found,  that,  when  such  a  system 
has  been  dissolved,  all  men  turn  lawgivers,  reformers,  founders 
of  sects  :  and  the  most  quiet  can  agree  on  rejecting  an  error, 
when  they  cannot  agree  upon  accepting  a  substitution  in  its 
place.  In  order  to  settle  such  substitution,  numbers  must  con 
sult  together ;  these  it  will  be  often  difficult  to  assemble,  often 
difficult  to  dissolve.  They  get  into  debates  on  subjects  which 
were,  in  many  conjunctures,  better  left  untouched;  they  run 
into  strife  and  contention,  to  which  there  is  no  end.  Solomon 
says1,  "the  beginning  of  strife  is  as  when  one  letteth  out 
water;""  and  his  saying  is  not  more  applicable  to  any  kind  of 
strife  than  to  religious. 

But,  though  a  council  would  probably  be  numerous,  they  52 
would  have  to  satisfy  a  much  greater  number  than  themselves, 
whose  acceptance  is  necessary :  the  people  at  large  must  be  sa 
tisfied,  whether  those  in  authority  are  many  or  few.  Here  we 
come  into  the  regions  of  ignorance  and  prejudice — amongst 
those  who  act  from  their  habitual  feelings.  Reason  and  good 
sense  will  not  prevail  here  against  established  custom2.  The 
sudden  imposition  of  new  laws  will  exasperate  and  revolt  the 
generality  of  those  whose  minds  are  unprepared3  to  receive 
them ;  but  leave  erroneous  notions  to  shew  themselves  gradual 
ly,  and  esteem4  for  them  will  decay ;  and  others  adopted  in 
their  place  will  at  last  be  quietly  received.  Nay,  if  the  people 


1  Prov.  xvii.  14. 

2  There  is  an  old  story  of  a  Romish 
priest,  who  had  in  his  book  mwnpsimus, 
instead  of  turbttoHUfi     The   error  was 


pointed  out  to  him  ;  but  he  declared  he 
would  never  give  up  his  mwnpgimus  for 
the  sumpsiniHs  of  any  man,  let  him  be 


The  change  of  style  (from  ().  8.  to 
X.  S.)  produced  many  murmurings,  and 
superstitious  terrors.  Some  anile  person 
ages  have  thought  that  nothing  has  ever 
gone  quite  right  since  that  change  was 
made. 

:|  Spirit  of  Laws,  h.  xix.  chap.  ii. 


who  lie  would.  '  My  Assize  Sermon,  p.  7- 


III.  vl.  4,  5.]      WHILST     OTHKIl     THINGS     HAVE     CHANGED. 

II.  were  to  be  told  this,  and  were  determined  to  throw  aside  cus 
tom,  and  follow  reason,  the  matter  would  be  full  as  bad.  All 
would  run  into  confusion. 

Those  who  were  enemies  to  this  method,  if  continued  for  a 
great  length  of  time,  must,  one  would  think,  allow  of  it  as  a 
temporary  expedient.  Teachers  of  religion  must  not  stop :  a 
succession  of  them  must  be  ordained,  though  some  things  ap 
pear,  in  the  forms  to  be  used  or  assented  to  by  them,  which 
want  amendment.  And  if  things  go  on  thus  for  a  while,  it  must 
appear  that  they  might  go  on  longer :  making  alterations  can 
not  seem  a  work  of  immediate  necessity. 

53  4.  If  we  conceive  a  number  of  improvements  to  be  made  in 
the  manner  here  described,  we  may  conceive  what  I  should 
call  a  tacit  reformation.  The  reasons  for  continuing  a  number 
of  errors  are  the  same  as  for  one.  When  the  number  is  suf 
ficiently  large,  and  has  continued  a  sufficient  time,  it  may  pro 
duce  an  express  reformation ;  but  so  long  as,  on  a  footing  of 
probability,  we  should  judge  that  it  would  produce  more  mis 
chief  than  the  continuance  of  the  errors  in  form  or  appearance, 
so  long  we  are  to  avoid  making  express  alterations.  In  prac 
tice,  there  will  be  a  difficulty  to  know  and  settle  what  to  allow 
as  an  improvement ;  or  as  an  improvement  duly  ratified.  The 
best  method  seems  to  be,  to  observe  what  the  generality  of 
learned  and  judicious  men  allow  to  be  such;  only  they  should 
be  men  who  shew  no  particular  love  of  innovation — no  ambition 
to  distinguish  themselves  by  reforming — no  restlessness  under 
authority — no  want  of  respect  to  the  wisdom  of  preceding  ge 
nerations.  In  general,  such  as  have  these  faults  are  but  few  in 
comparison  of  the  steady,  prudent,  and  sober-minded.  And 
therefore  we  may  say,  without  thinking  much  of  exceptions, 
that  the  most  rational  and  5 improved  are  to  be  attended  to; 
that  what  they  adopt  may  be  established  as  an  improvement :  or 
even  what  they  do  not  oppose,  when  suggested  by  others.  These 
are  those  who  ought  to  take  the  lead ;  and  they  will  do  so  after 
a  time,  if  not  at  first. 

5.    It  is  possible  to  conceive  such  a  series  of  improvements, 

that  all  the  laws  enjoining  forms  should  be  repealed.    In  this 

case  there  would  be  a  perfect  liberty.      And  one  does  not  see 

why  that  liberty  might  not  continue,  till  fresh  dissensions  and 

disturbances'1  called  for  fresh  restraints  and  declarations  of  opi- 

.U  nion.     This  conception   may  seem   extravagant;   but  one  case, 

5  Powell,  p.  35.  6  Chap.  v.  sect.  4. 


ARTICLES    LONG    CONTINUED  [III.  \7i,  (). 

which  will  be  mentioned  amongst  the  instances  in  the  next  II. 
section,  seems  to  come  very  near  it.  The  mere  conception  may 
give  us  an  idea  how  tacit  improvements  generate  liberty. 
Whatever  is  expressed  in  words  lately  settled  must  require 
obedience  without  abatement :  whatever  is  old  becomes  more  in 
definite,  and  is  to  be  construed  with  greater  latitude.  If  you 
expunge  any  thing,  and  substitute  something  else  in  its  place, 
what  is  substituted  must  be  construed  literally,  or  what  would 
be  called  so,  with  only  such  references  as  the  words  at  the 
time  are  seen  to  imply.  It  was  uncertain  what  references  the 
expunged  words  implied,  and  therefore  a  reasonable  freedom  of 
interpretation  might  be  allowed,  lest  they  should  lay  a  greater 
restraint  than  they  had  been  intended  to  lay.  Dr.  Powell  says, 
at  the  end  of  his  second  Discourse,  something  to  the  same  pur 
pose.  This  liberty  is  only  to  be  considered,  I  think,  as  an  in 
cidental  advantage ;  not  as  one  which  would  determine  men  to 
avoid  express  improvements. 

6.  After  all,  it  is  not  perhaps  to  be  expected  that  all  per 
sons  will  be  satisfied  with  this  reasoning,  and  with  the  method 
of  tacit  reformation.  Some  will  see  that  it  is  liable  to  abuse ; 
others  will  call  it  crafty,  evasive,  and  Jesuitical.  It  does  seem 
liable  to  abuse ;  but  what  is  not  so  ?  Every  duty  may  be 
evaded  by  an  unfair  mind ;  and  a  fair  ingenuous  mind  will  not 
treat  rules  and  forms  as  obsolete,  which  are  really  still  in  force. 
Cautions  may  be  made  so  determinate,  as  to  serve  for  guides 
and  directions  in  doubts  concerning  this  matter,  full  as  well  as 
concerning  many  others.  As  to  the  reasoning  being  evasive 
and  Jesuitical,  that  cannot  be  said  from  an  attentive  consider 
ation  of  the  argument.  It  will  bear  that  test  very  well.  But 
such  blame  may  arise  from  a  slight  view  of  it — from  reflexion  5,5 
upon  it  cut  short  by  passion  or  sentiment — by  abhorrence  of 
duplicity  and  deceit.  It  may  arise  from  that  honest  abruptness 
which  will  not  listen  to  any  thing  that  seems  calculated  to  per 
plex  plain  integrity,  to  entangle  common  sense,  to  confound 
truth  with  falsehood.  Now,  nothing  can  obviate  difficulties  of 
this  kind  better  than  a  few  facts;  and  amongst  facts  may  be 
reckoned  sayings  of  eminent  persons  who  spoke  with  no  view  to 
the  present  inquiry.  We  will  first,  then,  mention  some  instance 
or  two  of  civil  laws  losing  their  force  tacitly  and  gradually  ; 
then  a  few  facts  relating  to  matters  ecclesiastical ;  and  lastly, 
we  will  produce  a  few  sayings,  to  shew  that  our  notion  is  such 
as  has  been  recognised  and  approved  by  men  of  sense  and  judg- 


III.  vi.O'.J       WHILST    OTHER    THINGS    HAVE    CHANGED.  377 

II.  ment. — We  have  before1  mentioned  the  tenure  of  lands  called 
riUcnage.  In  the  loth  and  16'th  centuries,  improvements  took 
place  in  deriving  benefit  from  land,  both  to  the  owner  and 
tenant;  the  consequence  was,  that  "  villenage2  went  gradually 
into  disuse  throughout  the  more  civilised  parts  of  Europe." 
"And,  though3  the  ancient  statutes  on  this  subject  remain  still 
unrepcaled  by  parliament,  it  appears  that,  before  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  the  distinction  of  villain  and  freeman  was  totally 
though  insensibly  abolished."  In  1529,  Cardinal  Wolsey  was 
indicted  on  a  statute  of  Richard  the  Second,  for  procuring 
bulls  from  Rome.  On  this  indictment,  Mr.  Hume  remarks4, 
"  Besides  that  this  statute  was  fallen  altogether  into  disuse,  no 
thing  could  be  more  rigorous  and  severe  than  to  impute  to  him 
as  a  crime,  what  he  had  openly,  during  a  course  of  so  many 
years,  practised  with  the  consent  and  approbation  of  the  king, 

56  and  the  acquiescence  of  the  parliament  and  kingdom."  The 
disuse  was  sufficient  proof  that  this  statute  was  virtually  re 
pealed  :  the  acting  contrary  to  it,  with  approbation  or  ac 
quiescence,  was  demonstration.  Instead,  therefore,  of  calling 
the  indictment  "rigorous  and  severe,"  I  should  call  it  unjust 
and  iniquitous  in  the  greatest  degree.  The  same  statute  of 
Richard  the  Second  (called  the  Statute  of  Provisors)  was  after 
wards5  made  use  of  to  depress  the  clergy  in  general.  We 
find  a  similar  instance  of  injustice,  in  the  conviction  of  Lord 
Chancellor  Macclesfield,  recorded  in  the  life  of  Bishop  Pearcer\ 
In  ecclesiastical  matters,  nothing  is  more  to  our  purpose 
than  seeing  that  the  difficulties  of  altering  forms  have  been 
really  such  as  we  have  supposed  them.  An  instance  of  this 
might  be,  the  troubles  and  disturbances  occasioned  by  sub 
stituting  the  French  for  the  Spanish  Liturgy  or  Mass,  called 
the  Mosarabic7,  or  Liturgy  of  Toledo ;  or  those  occasioned  by 
our  Charles  the  First  attempting  to  establish  the  use  of.  the 
English  Liturgy  in  Scotland8.  In  1780,  the  Protestant  Asso 
ciation  occasioned  dreadful  riots  in  London  :  how  far  attachment 
to  the  Protestant  religion  was  concerned  in  these  may  be  dif 
ficult  to  determine.  Zuinglius,t\}e  reformer  at  Zurich,  in  152.'> 

1  (hap.  ii.  sect.  4.  |   lib.  ii.  Card.  Bona,  Liturg.  lib.  I.  cap. 

-  Hume,  vol.  n.  4to,  p.  444.  xi.  sect.  3. 

3  Ibid.  p.  44.K  «  Hume,  vol.  v.  4to,  p.  "214.  A.  i>.  Ki37. 

4  Vol.  in.  4to,  p.  1(12.  j    The  jealousies  might  be  mentioned  oc- 
s  Ibid.  p.  1/0.  Jan.  10,  1531.  ;   casioned  by  Charles  the   First's   queen 
"  P.  xiv.  being  a  Papist.     Ibid.  p.  lli'l. 

7  (Jomecitis  de  rebus  gestis  Ximcnis, 


378  ARTICLES    LONG     CONTINUED  [III.  VL  6. 

preached  against  the  established  religion,  the  Roman  :  the  senate  II. 
ordered  him  to  continue  to  do  so,  at  the  same  time  that  they  con 
tinued  the  same1  outward  worship,  which  was  contrary  to  the 
preaching  that  they  themselves  ordered.  But,  in  the  modern 
church  of  Geneva,  the  most  complete  tacit  reformation  seems  to 
have  taken  place.  Geneva  was  the  metropolis  of  Calvinism.  57 
Calvin  himself  taught  there;  and,  after  him,  Beza :  but  the 
Genevese  have  now  in  fact  quitted  their  Calvinistic  doctrines, 
though  inform  they  retain  them.  One  reason  for  retaining  the 
form  is,  lest  they  should  be  thought  heretics  by  the  Dutch 
churches.  When  the  catechumens  are  admitted  to  the  Sacra 
ment,  they  only  give  an  assent  to  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Apostles1  Creed ;  but,  when  the  minister  is  admitted,  he  takes 
an  oath  of  assent  to  the  Scriptures,  and  professes  to  teach  them 
'  according  to  the  Catechism  of  Calvin  ;">  but  this  last  clause, 
about  Calvin,  he  makes  a  separate  business ;  speaking  lower, 
or  altering  his  posture,  or  speaking  after  a  considerable  in 
terval.  There  seems  still  to  be  some  obligation  to  read  public 
lectures  at  Geneva  on  Calvin's  Catechism,  for  the  lecturers 
propose  a  part  of  it  as  a  subject  or  text ;  but  then  they  imme 
diately  go  oft1  to  something  else :  they  do  not  adhere  to  it,  nor 
even  treat  of  it.  The  youth  are  chiefly  taught  Ostervald^s 
Catechism,  which  seems  to  contain  what  may  now  be  called  the 
real  religion  of  Geneva0. 

Lastly,  I  will  mention  a  few  sayings  or  expressions,  which 
may  shew  that  the  notion  of  tacitly  repealing,  or  of  desuetude, 
has  been  professed  by  men  of  judgment.  Cicero  says:',  "Non 
vides  veteres  leges  aut  ipsa  siui  vetustate  consenuisse,  aut  novis 
legibus  esse  sublatas  ?"  In  the  Digests,  we  have,  "Reetissimc 
etiam  illud  receptum  est,  ut  leges  non  solum  suffragio  legisla- 
toris,  sed  etiam  tacito  consensu  omnium,  per  desuetudinem 
abrogentur."  Here,  the  laws  must  be  supposed  to  keep  their  58 
place  in  the  Code,  and  in  their  old  forms.  Bishop  Taylor4 
seems  to  say,  that,  when  a  custom  gets  established,  though 
against  law,  it  is  valid,  if  the  supreme  magistrate  suffers  the 
law  to  go  for  nothing  ;  which  he  may  do  by  his  tacit  consent 
or  secret  approbation  of  the  custom,  "as  by  not  punishing,  by 
not  complaining,  and  by  silence."  He  says,  indeed,  that  a 

1  Dupin's     Comp.    Hist.     Cent.     Ifi.      bridge;    written,   I  believe,   for  my  in- 
chap.  vii.  formation,  with  a  view  to  my  History  of 

2  This  account  is  taken  from  a  letter   I    Predestination. 

written  by  a  late  minister  of  Geneva,  to   j       •"'  Cic.  de  Oratore,  I.  fiK. 

a  respectable  fellow  of  a  College  in  Cam-    j        '   Ductor  dubitantium,  )?.  (!.  !!. 


III.  vl.   ()'.]        WHILST    OTHKIl     TMINCS     1IAVK     CHANGED. 

II.  '•r?frioit8  conscience"  might  not  be  at  peace  in  such  a  case; 
and  he  says,  that  doubt  may  arise  (when  a  custom  is  against  a 
law)  "whether  for  the  abrogation  of  the  law5  a  mere  desuetude 
or  omission  is  sufficient ;"  but  this  manner  of  speaking  rather 
confirms  our  general  principles.  Dr.  Bcdfftty*  in  his  heads 
of  Moral  Lectures,  treating  of  society  in  general,  has  the 
following  title  :  "  The  obligation  men  are  under  of  supplying 
the  defects  and  correcting  the  errors  of  established  laws, 
whilst  the  laws  themselves  continue  in  force"  This  being 
relative  to  society  in  general,  must  relate  as  much  to  eccle 
siastical  society  as  any  other.  What  Puffendorf  says  of  in 
terpretation  is  easily  applied  to  the  present  subject :  "eximendi 
sunt  illi  casus,  quos  exemturus  fuerat  ipse  legislator,  si  super 
tali  casu  consultus  fuisset :" — we  are  to  conceive  the  lawgiver  to 
be  consulted,  and,  if  it  is  clear  that  he  would  wish  a  certain 
law  to  be  neglected,  we  may  neglect  it,  though  in  words  it  is 
not  altered.  It  was  once7  heresy  to  assert  the  being  of  anti 
podes.  Suppose  a  person  to  have  founded  a  college  when  that 
notion  prevailed,  and  to  have  required  his  fellows  to  abjure, 
59  detest,  and  abhor,  as  impious  and  heretical,  the  doctrine  of 
antipodes ;  I  say,  that,  when  it  came  to  be  universally  agreed 
that  any  inhabitants  of  the  earth  might  have  antipodes,  such 
requisition  became  obsolete,  or  was  virtually  abrogated :  for,  if 
the  founder  could  have  been8  consulted,  he  would  undoubtedly 
have  ordered  it  to  be  expunged.  Yet  the  words  of  the  statute 
ought  for  ever  to  continue.  It  seems,  that,  when  a  reformation 
took  place  in  our  national  religion  expressly,  a  tacit  reformation 
might  be  conceived  to  take  place  in  those  religious  seminaries 
which  were  used  to  prepare  men  for  the  ministry  in  the 
national  Church,  In  our  University,  indeed,  it  seemed  to  our 
governors  worth  while  to  make  an  express  reformation.  Statutes 
were  given  by  Queen  Elizabeth  ;  but,  the  statutes  of  particular 
colleges  undergoing  no  alteration,  the  reformation  in  them  was 
tacit.  Many  statutes,  I  presume,  are  now  to  be  found  in  books 
of  college  statutes  which  have  lost  their  force.  Preaching  at 
Paul's  Cross,  I  have  heard,  is  enjoined  in  some  statutes. 

The  learned  and  worthy  Dr.  Law,  late  Bishop  of  Carlisle, 

5  3.  r..  7.  ~<  B.  II.  v.  xi. 

0  Part  II.  chap.  i.  ii.  These  have  not  j  n  I  was  glud  to  hear  Sir  William 

been  printed,  but  I  can  depend  upon  my  Wynne  and  3Ir.  Christian  (Professor  of 

authority,  as  he  lent  me  his  own  copy  English  Law  in  Cambridge)  agree,  June 

to  read  Lectures  from,  which  I  did  for  HO,  l/JUt,  in  thinking  this  a  right  prin- 

sonie  years.  ciple  in  interpreting  statutes. 


380  ARTICLES    LONG    CONTINUED  [III.  vi.  (). 

seems  to  have  intended   what  he   says  in  his  Considerations,  II. 

&c. l  on  Subscription  to  Articles  of  Faith,  as  a  stricture  on 
my  Assize  Sermon.  But,  if  he  did,  he  mistook  the  tendency 
of  my  observations.  He  is  speaking  of  penal  laws  against 
Dissenters,  of  which  I  had  no  thoughts.  "We  are  told  in 
deed,"  says  he,  "that  it  is  sometimes  better  and  safer  to  let  a 
law  drop  by  disuse,  than  to  abolish  it  by  a  formal  repeal.  But 
no  example  of  this  is  given."  No  example  seemed  required  : 
none  of  what  his  lordship  meant  could  be  given,  for  it  was  not  60 
in  my  thoughts.  I  did  not  advise  having  penal  laws  to  hang 
over  Dissenters ;  I  only  wanted  to  comfort  the  feeble-minded 
and  scrupulous,  who  feared  that  they  must  offend  against  the 
spirit  of  a  law,  if  they  offended  against  the  letter.  His  lordship 
goes  on  :  "  It  is  so  far  from  being  the  general  sense  of  our 
legislature,  that  hardly  a  session  is  suffered  to  pass  without 
expunging  from  their  statute-books  some  or  other  of  these 
antiquated2  ordinances"  I  know  not  that  I  said  any  thing 
about  our  legislators  in  particular ;  and  I  am  not  well  skilled 
in  the  statute  law  ;  but  I  really  do  not  think  that  they  do 
much  attend  to  expunging  old  laws.  They  make  new  ones, 
which  supersede  the  old  ones  of  course  ;  or  they  reduce  several 
old  laws  into  one  new  one ;  but,  supposing  I  did  speak  of  our 
legislators,  and  supposing  they  did  expunge  some  old  laws 
every  session,  yet  that  cannot  affect  me,  while  they  leave  any  old 
ones  unexpunged,  which  they  never  mean  to  enforce.  I  would 
have  all  old  laws  repealed,  that  can  be  repealed  without  incon 
venience.  The  worthy  prelate  (for  such  he  really  was)  con 
cludes  by  saying,  with  a  sort  of  a  controversial  sneer,  "And  we 
may  well  presume  they"  (our  lawgivers)  "would  have  thought 
it  no  good  objection  to  a  repeal  of  the  laws  against  ivitckes  or 
gypsies,  that  it  had  been  many  years  since  one  of  that  sort  of 
criminals  suffered  under  such  laws."  I  never,  in  strictness,  said 
a  word  against  the  repeal  of  any  law ;  but,  on  supposition  that 
some  laws  could  not  be  conveniently  repealed  in  form,  or  were 
not  repealed — when  some  parts  of  them  were  virtually  repealed, 
I  exhorted  all  honest  persons  not  to  make  themselves  unhappy 
about  neglecting  such  parts  as  were  so  virtually  repealed.  To  (Ji 
shew  that  such  supposition  was  reasonable,  indeed,  it  was  proper 
to  shew  how  and  why  laws  might,  in  some  cases,  be  left  in  the 
code,  when  they  were  virtually  repealed.  There  was  not  the 

1  Consideration,  <K.c.  pp.  2(1,  )50. 

-'  The  title  of  rny  Assize  Sermon  is,  "The  Nature  of  Obsolete  Ordinances." 


III.  vli.  1.]        WHILST    OTHER     THINGS    HAVE     CHANGED.         381 

II.  least  inconvenience  or  difficulty  in  repealing  expressly  the 
statute  against  witches  or  gypsies,  and  therefore  that  statute 
was  not  to  the  purpose.  Had  any  people  been  uneasy  in  mind 
about  neglecting  it,  and  could  it  not  have  been  expressly  re 
pealed,  without  great  mischiefs  and  inconveniences,  then  it 
would  have  afforded  a  pertinent  instance. 


,;>  CHAPTER    VII. 

OF    TRUTH    OPPOSITE    TO    THE    LETTER. 

1.  HAVING  got  an  idea  of  a  tacit  reformation,  let  us  pur- 
sue  our  train  of  thought,  and  see  what  will  result  from  it.  Time, 
or  that  change  of  circumstances  which  usually  attends  it,  may 
take  away  the  first  meaning  of  a  set  of  words,  and  may  give  them 
a  new  meaning ;  that  is,  they  may  acquire  a  new  meaning  by 
various  accidents,  in  a  course  of  time.  We  have  mentioned  the 
separate  words3  knave  and  villain;  and  it  is  full  as  easy  to  con 
ceive  a  form  of  words  to  change  their  meaning  by  a  tacit  refor 
mation,  as  to  conceive  these  to  change  their  meaning  without 
one:  the  cause  of  the  change  being  known,  the  change  becomes 
more  intelligible.  If  words,  acknowledged  to  contain  an  error, 
are  still  to  be  used,  repeated,  or  assented  to,  they  must  be  used 
either  in  720  sense,  or  in  a  new  sense.  It  will,  I  think,  more 
frequently  happen  that  they  will  contain  some  sense;  as  the 
substance  of  the  same  duty  or  observance,  in  different  cir 
cumstances,  or  something  of  that  sort.  An  instance  of  a  tacit 
reformation  changing  a  sense  might  be  conceived  to  take  place 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell.  By  hell  is 
most  usually  meant  the  habitation  of  those  who,  after  death, 
are  in  a  state  of  condemnation  and  punishment:  'Christ  de 
scended  into  hell,1  taken  literally,  might  mean,  he  descended 
thither ;  and  taken  in  the  new  sense,  he  descended  into  the 
g'rare,  or  was  buried.  'I  will  say  so  many  masses  for  the 
6'.')  soul  of  Henry  vi.'  may  come  to  mean,  'I  will  perform  the 
religious  duties  required  of  me  by  those  who  have  authority.' 
'I  will  commonly  wear  a  gown  with  standing  collar;  in  my 
journeys  a  priest's  cloak  without  gards,  welts,  long  buttons  or 
cuts.''  This  may  come  to  mean,  'I  will  observe  a  decency  in 
dress  suitable  to  my  profession.'  'I  will  preach  at  Paul's 
Cross,'  may  mean,  'I  will  endeavour  to  propagate  true  religion.' 

a  Chap.  ii.  sect.  4. 


382  THUTH    OPPOSITE    TO    THE    LETTER.      [III.  vii.  2,  3. 

2.  The  primitive  sense  is  called  the  literal  sense,  because  II. 
made  according  to   common  custom  of  language,   plainly  and 
simply :   the  new  sense  is  often  made  through  necessity,  or  to 
avoid  a  greater  evil ;    sometimes,  on  purpose  to  avoid  plainness 

of  speech,  in  cases  where  plainness  would  give  offence. 

Any  one  may  adopt  the  new  sense  without  real  falsehood ; 
(always  supposing  it  is  agreeable  to  his  opinions;)  he  may 
speak  what  would,  according  to  the  literal  sense,  be  false,  if 
only  he  does  it  so  as  not  to  deceive  any  one  whom  he  under 
takes  to  inform.  The  instance  of  '  not  at  home'  may  be 
mentioned  again1.  It  seems  to  have  been,  of  old,  allowed  on 
all  sides,  as  we  say  the  good  ship,  &c.  to  call  in  a  form  of 
advertisement,  any  farm  house  (or  country  house)  exposed  to 
sale,  a  good  and  well  built  house: — qui  proscribunt,  villam 
bonam  beneque  (zdificatam,  non  existimantur  fefellisse,  etiamsi 
ilia  nee  bona  est,  nee  redificata  ratione2  A  man  may  truly  say 
he  is  the  servant  of  another,  though  he  does  not  mean  to  carry 
his  burdens,  if  only  he  is  willing  to  perform  all  customary 
offices  towards  him  of  courtesy  and  civility  :  indeed,  it  must 
be  supposed  that  the  person,  to  whom  he  makes  the  profession, 
will  be  ready  to  understand  it  in  that  sense3.  And  the  reason  64 
of  this  extends  to  religious  forms. 

3.  This  brings  us,  from  considering  the  speaker,  to  con 
sider  how  far  veracity,   in  assenting  to  forms,  depends  upon 
the  hearer,  or  person  addressed. 

What  was  said,  on  the  subject  of  veracity  in  general,  may 
be  applied  here.  As,  in  common  discourse  or  correspondence, 
it  was  in  the  power  of  the  speaker1  and  the  person  addressed  to 
use  words  in  any  sense  they  pleased,  so  the  sense  of  a  declara 
tion  of  religious  opinions,  made  according  to  a  form,  must  de 
pend  upon  agreement  between  him  who  makes  it  and  him  to 
whom  it  is  made,  as  to  the  signs  by  which  ideas  shall  be  com 
municated  :  no  one  else  can  be  concerned.  This  is  founded  on 
the  nature  of  falsehood  ;  which  is  deceiving  those  whom  we 
undertake  to  inform.  If  you  express  your  real  mind  in  any 
manner,  which  will  not  deceive  those  whom  you  undertake 
to  inform,  you  speak  truth. 

The    ideas   affixed   to  signs,  or   the  meaning  of    signs  or 


1  Chap.  ii.  sect.  4. 

2  Cic.  tie  Oft'.  3.  IS.    This  notion  is 
mentioned    by   Cicero   as   what  no  dis- 


/>()}>c  to  mean  something  by  his  being 
xcrrttti  .vf/vo>v/M/,  if  he  was  very  humble 
to  those  who  did  their  duty  to  him. 


putants  would  contradict.  4  Chap.  ii.  sect.  4. 

"  I  would  be  willing  to  understand   a 


III.  vii.  4.]         TRUTH    OPPOSITE     TO    THE    LETTER.  383 

II.  words,  may  be  changed  tacitly  in  expressions  of  religious  doc 
trine,  as  well  as  when  common  words  are  used  ;  as  has  appeared 
in  Chap.  vi.  This  mode  of  change  is  somewhat  less  definite 
than  the  express  one,  at  first,  and  till  after  pretty  long  experi 
ence  :  but  this  makes  no  difference  as  to  the  right  or  wrong. 
Notwithstanding  the  likeness  between  this  and  what  was  ob 
served  before,  it  seems  proper  to  say  what  we  now  say  ;  because, 
in  common  speaking,  we  have  no  doubt  to  whom  we  speak,  or 
whom  we  undertake  to  inform :  in  making  a  declaration  of 

65  religious  opinions  according  to  a  fixed  form,  that  matter  is  less 
evident  and  striking.  It  may  be  matter  of  inquiry,  not  only 
what  our  declaration  properly  means,  but  to  whom  it  is  directed, 
or  who  has  authority  to  receive  it. 

4.  If  then  you  ask,  who  is  the  person  addressed,  or  the 
person  I  undertake  to  inform,  when  I  give  assent  to  a  set  of  re 
ligious  propositions,  it  is  most  obvious  to  answer,  the  Church — 
that  artificial  person.  Your  concern  is  only  with  the  Church  ; 
you  can  hurt  no  other  person ;  nor  has  any  other  person  any 
right  to  inquire  into  your  opinions.  A  church  indeed  may  be 
a  large  body,  too  large  to  concert  with  you  in  what  sense  your 
declaration  shall  be  understood.  Let  us,  for  the  ease  of  our 
minds,  conceive  some  small  number  of  persons  to  possess  the 
mind  of  the  Church,  in  the  way  of  committee  or  representation: 
let  the  number  be  nine :  (fixed  upon  only  as  a  name,  for  con 
venience  in  speaking  and  reasoning:) — now,  if  he  who  gives  his 
assent  explains  to  these  nine  the  sense  in  which  he  gives  it,  and 
they  accept  that  sense,  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  deceive,  or  to 
be  guilty  of  falsehood.  Others,  who  are  not  concerned,  may 
possibly  take  up  wrong  notions  of  the  opinions  of  him  who 
makes  the  declaration  ;  but  that  is  their  own  fault :  they  de 
ceive  themselves.  Were  the  sense  in  which  he  assents  ever  so 
far  from  the  literal  sense,  I  cannot  see  any  breach  of  veracity  in 
his  conduct.  He  might  assent  to  new  doctrines  in  old  words; 
and  it  might  be  as  necessary,  if  dissension  was  thought  likely 
to  hurt  religious  principles,  to  require  such  assent,  as  any 
other. 

Having,  by  means  of  supposing  a  small  number,  got  clear 
ideas  of  the  case,  we  may  substitute,  in  the  place  of  our  nine, 
those  with  whom  we  are  in  reality  to  agree,  though  their 
situation  will  make  our  duty  and  our  views  more  indefinite. 

6(j  I    mean,    according  to  what    was   said    in    the5    last   chapter, 

('Imp.  vi.  sect.  4. 


384  TRUTH    OPPOSITE    TO    THE    LETTER.         [I  II.  VH.  5. 

the  generality  of  learned  and  judicious  men — of  those  who  II. 
ought  to  take  the  lead  in  ecclesiastical  affairs:  ceteris  paribus 
those  must  have  the  greatest  weight  who  are  invested  with 
ecclesiastical  authority.  These  must,  in  practice,  be  conceived 
to  possess  the  mind  of  the  Church ;  and  the  multitude  to  act 
on  their  authoritv. 

•/ 

It  is  not  our  present  business  to  speak  of  the  customs  of 
particular  churches,  except  in  the  way  of  illustration.  In  that 
light  it  must  be  considered,  if  we  mention,  that,  in  England,  a 
national  synod,  or  the  Convocation,  has  been1  considered  as  the 
Church,  though  now  its  authority  seems  obsolete;  and  that 
Dr.  John  Surges  considered  so  small  a  number  as  the  King 
and  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Abbot),  as  capable  of  ac 
cepting  his  explanations  of  his  assent,  and  of  affirming  "them 
to  be  the  true  sense  and  intention  of  the  Church  of  England2.1'* 
This  last  is  a  smaller  number  than  even  our  nine ;  consisting 
only  of  the  heads  of  the  Church  and  State. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  add  here,  that,  in  other  institutions 
besides  a  church,  where  tacit  reformation  has  taken  place,  if  it 
can  be  settled  who  has  a  power  of  receiving  a  declaration, 
whether  of  opinion,  or  of  purpose  of  conformity  to  rules  and 
customs,  the  person  who  makes  it  may  lawfully  make  it  in 
that  sense  in  which  it  will  be  received.  This  applies  to 
what  is  called  matriculation  in  universities,  engagements  to 
obey  statutes  in  colleges,  orders  of  knighthood,  chapters,  and 
other  ancient  associations.  There  seem,  in  forms  of  indentures,  67 
to  be  very  old  expressions;  though  one  would  think  they  might 
be  drawn  up  according  to  modern  customs;  but  there  is  some  use 
in  seeing  examples  of  ancient  regularity  and  frugality. 

5.  Where  it  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the  person  who  has 
authority  to  receive  a  declaration,  it  may  be  very  useful  to  con 
sider  the  end  for  which  it  is  required3.  There  is  nothing 
which  will  bring  us  nearer  to  a  right  conception,  and  one 
on  which  we  may  rely.  The  ideas  of  those  who  require  our 
assent  must  appear  in  a  good  degree  from  the  purpose  for 
which  they  require  it1.  The  general  end  and  design  of  re 
quiring  assent  to  a  body  of  religious  tenets  is,  to  maintain 


1  Canon  1IW,  about  a  ntilionnl  xi/n»<L 
King's  Declaration  prefixed  to  M  Articles. 

-  Dr.  John  Burges's  Answer  rejoined, 
&c.  London,  If  131,  p.  2(J. 

3  Chap.  i.  sect.  5. 

4  A  commander  at  sea,  a  very   long 


way  from  home,  must  make  use  of  this 
rule  in  interpreting  and  applying  his 
orders.  A  man  who  has  a  body  of  doc 
trine  before  him  is  sometimes  very  far 
from  having  those  at  hand  who  have 
authority  to  determine  its  precise  sense. 


Ill.vii.  ()."]        TIIUTH     OPPOSITE    TO    THE    LETTEK.  385 

II.  unity  of  doctrine5:  if  then  such  unity  is  maintained,  the 
principal  end  is  accomplished.  But  is  not  that,  in  other  words, 
to  say,  it  is  more  the  design  of  articles  of  religion  to  make  men 
agree,  whatever  may  be  the  opinions  in  which  they  agree,  than 
to  make  them  agree  in  any  particular  opinions  ?  Most  principles 
may  be  carried  too  far ;  but  if  the  case  be  as  we  state  it,  the 
views  of  those  in  authority  will  generally  be,  to  have  that 
sense  taken  in  which  all  agree ;  or  as  nearly  all  as  may  be. 
This  reasoning  will  make  our  sincerity  to  be  intimately  con 
nected  with  our  conformity.  .  .  We  are  plainly  told,  that  our 
39  Articles  are  "for  the  avoiding  of  diversities  of  opinions,  and 
for  the  stablishing  of  consent  touching  true  religion ;"  (every 
man  calls  his  own  religion  true  religion ;)  so  as  there  is  no 
diversity  of  opinions,  so  as  there  is  consent,  the  main  end  is 

6s  answered.  It  is  to  our  present  purpose  to  remark,  that  a 
preamble  to  a  law,  or  a  preface  to  a  body  of  statutes,  is  a 
good  ground  of  interpreting  any  ambiguous  passages,  as  it 
shews  the  end  and  design  of  the  lawgiver.  But  it  happens, 
that  the  King's  Declaration  or  Injunction  prefixed  to  our  39 
Articles  speaks  of  the  literal  sense — the  ^general,  plain,  full, 
grammatical  sense.  What  it  has  particularly  in  view7  can  be 
determined  only  by  history ;  but  we  may  say,  in  general,  that 
the  literal  sense  of  any  form  can  be  the  right  sense  only  whilst 
it  is  new8.  And,  though  the  preamble  of  any  statute  is  a  great 
help  to  the  right  interpretation  of  it,  by  shewing  us  the  end  and 
design  for  which  such  statute  was  made,  yet  it  must  always  be 
supposed,  that  such  preamble  was  first  made  and  published 
with  the  statute;  whereas,  our  Articles  were  made  in  156*2,  and 
the  Injunction  most  probably  not  till  1628.  But  had  the  pre 
amble  been  made  with  the  Articles,  yet,  in  whatever  degree 
they  grow  obsolete,  the  Injunction  must  grow  so,  notwithstand 
ing  it  commands  interpretation  in  the  literal  sense. 

6.  What  has  been  said  may  tend  to  explain  a  passage  in 
Dr.  Powell's  second  Discourse9:  "How  unjust  then  is  the 
charge  brought  against  the  English  clergy,  that,  having  de 
parted  from  the  meaning  of  their  articles,  they  all  continue  to 
subscribe  what  none  believes!  The  accusation  is  not  only 
false,  but  the  crime  impossible."  The  English  clergy  compre 
hends  both  parties ;  that  which  makes  the  declaration,  and  that 
which  receives  it.  If  these  are  agreed,  there  can  be  no  false- 

•'  Chap.  i.  and  iii.  and  v.  1  Most  likely  predestination. 

c  See  Bingham,  vol.  n.  p.  745.  8  See  chap.  vi.  sect.  1.  n  P.  37. 

VOL.  I.  25 


386  FALSEHOOD    IN    SPEAKING  [III.  viii.  1. 

hood.  This  shews  how  a  minister  of  the  church  of  Geneva  is  I. 
now  clear  of  the  crime  of  prevarication,  though  there  is  so 
strong  an  appearance  of  it  in  the  manner  of  assenting1.  I  do  69 
not  say,  that  at  Jirst  every  minister  there  was  innocent ;  new 
senses  have  generally  their  origin  in  some  degree  of  falsehood2; 
but,  when  any  man  comes  to  be  perfectly  understood,  he  can 
not  deceive.  This  may  explain  the  passage  of  Dr.  Powell,  im 
mediately  following  the  last :  "  That  cannot  be  the  sense  of  the 
Declaration  which  no  one  imagines  to  be  the  sense,  nor  can  that 
interpretation  be  erroneous  which  all  have  received.  With 
whatever  violence  it  was  at  first  introduced,  yet  possession  is 
always  a  sufficient  title  ;  and  a  long  and  quiet  possession  renders 
that  title  indisputable." 

7-  In  some  circumstances  it  might  be  thought  hurtful  to 
reason  in  this  manner  openly.  The  very  end  of  tacit  improve 
ments  is,  to  keep  things  in  a  train  of  that  quiet  and  tranquillity 
which  is  requisite  for  the  encouragement  of  religious3  senti 
ments  ;  and,  while  errors  are  newly  discovered,  and  few  in 
number,  it  may  be  the  least  evil  to  observe  a  degree  of  reserve 
and  prudence  about  them.  The  principal  ends  of  religion 
continue  to  be  answered,  though  some  few  enlightened  persons 
have  discovered  errors,  with  which  the  common  people  are  un 
acquainted.  But,  when  calumny  begins  to  fall  heavy  upon  mi 
nisters,  as  if  they  were  consulting  private,  not  public  good,  as 
if  they  were  guilty  of  falsehood,  for  the  sake  of  honours  and 
emoluments ;  and,  when  weak  brethren  begin  to  be  scandal 
ized,  and  honest  men  avoid  the  ministry,  because  ancient  con 
stitutions  do  not  exactly  suit  their  judgment ;  then  it  becomes 
the  less  evil  to  speak  plainly,  and  shew  that  those  who  assent 
are  as  honest  as  those  who  do  not  assent — that  they  go  upon 
principles  which  will  bear  rational  examination,  though  to  the 
unthinking  they  are  not  strikingly  evident. 


CHAPTER    VIII.  70 

OF    FALSEHOOD    IN     SPEAKING    ACCORDING    TO    THE    LETTER. 

1.    HERE  we  have  no  concern  with  plain,  wilful  falsehood: 
we  conceive  men  to  speak  their  real  opinions,  only  to  use  words 

1  Chap.  vi.  sect.  0.  -  Chap.  ii.  sect.  4.  3  Chap.  iii.  sect.  4. 


III.  Viii.  2.]  ACCORDING    TO    THE    LETTER.  387 

II.  so  as  to  deceive  others,  and  to  think  it  a  sufficient  excuse  for 
such  deception,  that  their  words  bore  the  literal  sense. 

We  first  affirm,  that,  when  words  have  acquired  a  new 
meaning,  what  in  the  new  sense  would  be  truth,  may,  in  the 
primitive  or  literal  sense,  be  falsehood.  This  seem  to  follow 
immediately  from  what  has  been  said  :  most  men  would  say, 
not  only  may,  but  must  be  falsehood.  Yet  sentences  may  be 
so  constructed  that  a  proposition  may  be  true  in  both  senses. 
'  My  master  is  not  at  home,1*  may  be  so :  as  also  Villam  bonam 
beneque  cedificatam. 

2.    A  few  instances  may  be  proper  to  shew  the  nature  of 
the  kind  of  falsehood  of  which  we  are  speaking ;  yet  instances 
do  not  seem  numerous ;  the  reason  may  be,  because  occasions 
for  them  are  not  numerous.     Such  instances  are  all  reducible  to 
one  general  form,  using  words  in  a  literal   sense,    when  that 
sense  must  deceive;   which  it  must  do  when  they  would  be 
understood    in    the   new   or   acquired   sense.      Suppose,   when 
Captain  Henry  Wilson  brought  Lee  Boo  from  the  Pelew  Islands, 
to  England,    he  had  shewn  him  King  George,  saying,  "  that 
is  the  King  of  France"  he  would  have  been  guilty  of  false 
hood,  though,  according  to  the  titles  of  our  king,  his  words 
were  true.     Suppose  a  gentleman  said,   in    public    company, 
71   speaking  of  one  who  was  his  steward  and  tenant,  that  he  was 
a  knave  and  villain;  and,   upon   being  sued  for  defamation, 
alleged  that  knave  only  meant  servant,  and  villain,    tenant: 
would  he  be  allowed  to  have  spoken  the  plain  harmless  truth, 
because  he  used  these  words  in  their  primitive  literal  sense4  ? 
Supposing  the  third  article  (of  the  English  Church)  of  1552 
had  been  tacitly,  instead  of  expressly  repealed,  and  a  minister 
had  been  of  opinion  that  1  Pet.  iii.  19  was  there  rightly  applied; 
yet,  if  he  declared  his  assent  to  the  article  in  that  sense  to  a 
church  in  which  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  it  was  wrongly 
applied,  I   should  say  he  was  guilty  of  falsehood.     Such  an 
instance  of  falsehood  would  do  no  harm,  and  therefore  would 
not  be  treated  as  falsehood  ;  but  if  a  Papist  was  to  admit  him 
self  of  a  college  which  had  been  founded  before  the  Reforma 
tion,    and    excuse    himself  for   doing  so  as  intending  to   say 
mass,  and  do  every  thing  exactly  as  prescribed  by  the  statutes, 
I  apprehend  he  would  be  treated  as  false  and  prevaricating : 


4  One  receives  letters  from  an  house 
keeper:  she  signs  herself  one's  "obedi- 
mt  humble  xcrvant" — which  is  just  as 


false  as  if  she  had  written,  '  I  am  a  gen 
tlewoman,  and  not  your  servant,  but  will 
ing  to  shew  you  any  civility.'1 

25 — 2 


388  FALSEHOOD    IN    SPEAKING          [III.  vili.  3,  4. 

and  yet,  by  the  way,  what  should  hinder  this,  if  there  were  no    II 
tests  ?      Nevertheless,  some  distinguished   enemies   to  Popery 
are  for  wholly  removing  them. 

3.  Men  have  certainly  a  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  literal 
sense,  and  against  all  such  departure  from  it  as  we  are  describ 
ing  ;   and  some  notice  should  be  taken  of  it,  lest  it  should  pre 
vail  farther  than  it  ought.      This  prejudice  may  be  considered 
as  general,  and  as  particularly  forcible  in  matters  of  religion. 
As  to  the  general  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  literal  sense,  it  may 
be  said,  that,  mere  habit  makes  prejudice;   and  habit  is  certain 
ly  on  the  side  of  the  primitive  meaning.      This  primitive  or  72 
literal  meaning  is  moreover  associated  in  the  mind  with  truth, 
and  is  therefore  esteemed  and  honoured :   the  new  sense,  having 
originated  in  some  degree  in  falsehood,  is  associated  with  false 
hood.     The  one  is  always  like  keeping  one's  word,  the  other 
has  always  the  appearance  of  quirk  and  evasion :  it  is  indeed 
invented  in  order  to  avoid  offensive  plainness. 

Prejudice  is  also  on  the  side  of  the  literal  sense  in  religious 
matters  particularly.  A  man  who  seems  to  act  without  artifice 
and  duplicity,  is  judged  to  be  more  pious  and  religious  than 
one  who  seems  to  be  evading  his  duty.  And  he  who  follows 
the  literal  sense,  in  religious  forms,  does  nothing  which  in  ef 
fect  counteracts  this  prejudice,  even  when  he  is  less  strictly  right, 
than  he  who  uses  the  new  and  acquired  sense :  he  mixes  with 
those  who  differ  from  him,  and  there  is  nothing  which  hinders 
them  from  worshipping  together;  nay,  from  sympathizing  in 
many  parts  of  devotion.  To  require  from  any  one  an  in 
terpretation  of  his  form  of  assenting  would  be  to  impose  a 
new  form. 

4.  We  have1  already  mentioned  the  possibility  that  a  tacit 
reformation  might  be  total ;  as  each  part  might  become  obsolete, 
every  part  might  become  so  ;   or  at  least  every  distinguishing 
part.     In  this  case,  a  religious  society  would  change  its  doc 
trines,   and  yet  retain  the  expressions  by  which  they  were  de 
fined.     But  now,  at   the  same  time  that  one  society  did  this, 
another  might  adhere  to  the  old  sense  of  the  forms ;   this  last 
will  be  easily  allowed  ;  but,   if  both  happened  together,  there 
would  be  two  religious  societies,   dissenting  from  each  other, 
yet  using  the  same  articles  of  faith.     We  have  seen  the  more 
strange    of   these  suppositions    exemplified    in   the   church    of  73 
Geneva.      The  multitude  may  possibly  retain  the  Calvinistic 

1  Chap.  vi.  sect.  f>. 


III.  Viii.  5.]  ACCORDING    TO    THE    LETTER.  389 

II.  notions,  especially  if  any  teachers  do ;  and  then  the  whole  case 
would  be  exemplified. 

I  have  heard  it  said,  that  those,  who  have  been  commonly 
called  Methodists  amongst  us,  have  spoken  of  themselves2  as  the 
true  Church  of  England;  and  have  said,  that  we  have  departed 
from  the  true  sense  of  our  Articles,  &c.  which  they  retain.  I 
do  not  derive  this  from  any  undeniable  authority;  but  by  way 
of  illustration  we  will  suppose  something  of  the  kind  to  be  true. 
As  far  as  I  can  judge,  Mr.  Wesley,  Mr.  Whitfield,  &c.  give 
too  literal  a  construction  to  expressions  of  Scripture,  which 
should  be  understood  popularly  or  figuratively:  they  may 
therefore  understand  articles  too  literally,  into  which  those 
expressions  of  Scripture  are  introduced  :  but  no  matter.  Sup 
posing  they  understood  parts  of  our  Articles  in  a  literal  sense, 
which  we  assent  to  in  a  different  sense,  we  are  two  different 
Churches  of  England,  using  the  same  forms3.  Which  is  the 
true  church  may  not  be  clear :  we  might  be  called  the  present 
church,  and  they  perhaps  the  4 antiquated  church.  Each  party 
may  be  sincere :  in  each  the  minister  may  assent  in  the  sense  in 
which  he  is  understood  to  assent  by  those  whom  he  accounts 
the  most  judicious.  Amongst  the  ancient  pagans,  we  are  told, 
74  that  the  philosophers,  or  initiated,  had  one  religion,  and  the 
profanum  vulgus  another ;  and  these  seem  to  have  gone  on  to 
gether  as  one,  in  some  respects.  Could  the  elect  and  auditors 
amongst  the  Manicheans  be  mentioned  as  a  similar  instance  ? 

5.  Here,  another  passage  of  Dr.  Powell's  second  Discourse 
occurs5,  which  used  to  seem  difficult  to  me  :  "  That  he  may 
understand  them  (the  Articles)  in  their  most  obvious  and  primi 
tive  signification,  will  scarce  be  doubted.  And  yet,  if  there  is 
any  place  for  doubt,  it  can  be  only  here."  This  may  mean, 
common  men  will  scarce  doubt  that  a  man  speaks  truth  who 
speaks  according  to  the  literal  sense  ;  but  those  who  have  con 
sidered  the  nature  of  veracity  and  of  tacit  reformations,  will 
see,  that  a  man,  by  speaking  according  to  the  literal  sense, 
may  speak  falsehood. 

2  See  Burn's  Eccles.  Law,  under  Dis-  j    there  be  two,  one  subordinate,  the  other 
senters,  in  his  explanation  of  sect.  8.  of  opposite,  to  the  present  ecclesiastical  es- 
the  Toleration  Act.  Warburton  on  Grace,  tablishment  and  authority;   one  within 
p.  204,  12mo.  I    doors,  the  other  without." 

3  In   Wesley's   Letters,    Mr.   Samuel  j       4  So,  at  Geneva,  there  may  be  a  pre- 
Wesley  writes  thus  :  p.  113— or  Lett.  27:  '    sent  church,  and  an  antiquated  church, 
"It  is  in  vain  for  Whitfield  to  pretend  fl  Vol.  of  Disc.  p.  u(>. 

he  is  of  the  Church  of  England,  unless 


390 


FALSEHOOD    IN    SPEAKING  [III.  viii.  6. 


6.  I  will  conclude  this  chapter  with  some  illustrations  of  II. 
some  things  which  have  been  advanced  in  this  and  the  two 
foregoing  chapters.  Let  any  one  read  the  74th  canon  of  our 
Church ;  and  keep  in  mind,  that  every  minister  is  under  l  en 
gagement,  made  expressly  or  tacitly,  to  obey  canonical  autho 
rity2.  It  appears,  first,  that  a  tacit  reformation  has,  since  75 
1603,  taken  place  in  the  Church  of  England,  with  regard  to 
the  habits  of  its  ministers.  2.  That  he  who  engages  himself  to 
obey  the  laws  with  regard  to  apparel,  is  understood  to  engage 
himself  according  to  present  notions  of  decency  and  gravity; 
that  is,  in  the  new  and  acquired,  not  in  the  literal  sense  of 
such  engagement :  and  therefore  that  the  person  who  does  act 
after  the  new  and  acquired  sense,  speaks  truth,  though  contrary 
to  the  letter  ;  whereas  any  one  who  should  make  the  engage 
ment  in  the  literal  sense,  would  speak  falsehood,  though  accord- 


1  It  may  be    convenient  to  conceive 
this  engagement  to  be  made  with  regard 
to  every  particular  separately ;  as  a  gene 
ral  promise  is  the  same  thing,  in  effect, 
with  a  number  of  promises  to  perform 
each  particular ;  and  as  then  the  obsolete 
duties  would  be  distinguished  from  those 
which  were  still  in  force. 

2  "The  true,  ancient,  and  flourishing 
churches  of  Christ,  being  ever  desirous 
that  their  prelacy  and  clergy  might  be 
had    as  well   in   outward  reverence,   as 
otherwise  regarded  for  the  worthiness  of 
their  ministry,  did  think  it  fit,  by  a  pre 
script  form  of  decent  and  comely  apparel, 
to  have  them  known  to  the  people,  and 
thereby  to  receive  the  honour  and  estima 
tion  due  to  the  special  messengers  and 
ministers  of  Almighty  God.     We  there 
fore,   following  their  grave  judgement, 
and  the  ancient  custom  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  hoping  that  in  time  new- 
fangleness  of  apparel  in  some  factious 
persons   will   die  of  itself,  do  constitute 
and  appoint,  That  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  shall  not  intermit  to  use  the  ac 
customed  apparel  of  their  degrees.    Like 
wise  all  deans,  masters  of  colleges,  arch 
deacons,,   and  prebendaries  in  cathedral 
and  collegiate  churches  (being  priests  or 
deacons),  doctors  in  divinity,  law,   and 
physic,  bachelors  in  divinity,  masters  of 
arts,   and  bachelors  of  law,   having  any 
ecclesiastical  living,  shall  usually  wear 


gowns  with  standing  collars,  and  sleeves 
strait  at  the  hands,  or  wide  sleeves,  as  is 
used  in  the  Universities,  with  hoods  or 
tippets  of  silk  and  sarcenet,  and  square 
caps.  And  that  all  other  ministers  ad 
mitted  or  to  be  admitted  into  that  func 
tion,  shall  also  usually  wear  the  like 
apparel,  as  is  aforesaid,  except  tippets 
only.  We  do  further,  in  like  manner 
ordain,  That  all  the  said  ecclesiastical 
persons  above-mentioned  shall  usually 
wear  in  their  journeys  cloaks  with  sleeves, 
commonly  called  priests'  cloaks,  without 
guards,  welts,  long  buttons,  or  cuts. 
And  no  ecclesiastical  person  shall  wear 
any  coif  or  wrought  night-cap,  but  only 
plain  night-caps  of  black  silk,  satin,  or 
velvet.  In  all  which  particulars  con 
cerning  the  apparel  here  prescribed,  our 
meaning  is  not  to"  attribute  any  holiness 
or  special  worthiness  to  the  said  gar 
ments,  but  for  decency,  gravity,  and 
order,  as  is  before  specified.  In  private 
houses,  and  in  their  studies,  the  said 
persons  ecclesiastical  may  use  any  comely 
and  scholar-like  apparel,  provided  that  it 
be  not  cut  or  pinkt ;  and  that  in  public 
they  go  not  in  their  doublet  and  hose, 
without  coats  or  cassock ;  and  that  they 
wear  not  any  light-coloured  stockings. 
Likewise  poor  beneficed  men  and  curates 
(not  being  able  to  provide  themselves 
with  long  gowns)  may  go  in  short  gowns 
of  the  fashion  aforesaid." 


III.  viii.  6.]  ACCORDING    TO    THE    LETTER.  391 

II.  inn  to  the  letter.     He  would  deceive  those  who  were  authorized 

o 

to  receive  his  promise ;  nor  would  his  deceit  be  wholly  harm- 

76  less,  as  it  would  bring  contempt  and  disgrace  on  the  Church. 
3.   That,  in   the  case  of  a  tacit  reformation,  if  any  one  said 
that   all   the  ministers   subscribed   what  none   believed,    there 
would  be  just  as  much  force  in  the  observation  as  if  he  said,  all 
the  English   ministers  engage  to  dress  as  none  of  them  intend 
to  dress  ;   the   remark  would  be  true,  but  trifling.     They  all 
do  engage  to  dress,   as  they  are  expected  to  dress,  according 
to  present  ideas  of  clerical  decency.      4.   It  is  conceivable  that 
there  might  be  two  sets  of  ministers  obeying  the  canon ;   one 
dressing  according  to  it  literally,   the  other  obeying  it  accord 
ing  to  modern  customs  of  grave  clothing  for  religious  ministers. 
In   this  case  it  might  be  questioned  which  set  were  the   true 
ministers  of  the  Church ;  and  it  might  be  found  more  discreet 
to  wave  that  question,  and  call  one  set  the  present ;,  or  modern, 
the  other  the  antiquated  ministers  of  the  church.     5.  A  perusal 
of  this  canon  might  illustrate  the  nature  of  that  liberty  which 
arises  from  continuance  of  the  same  laws  for  a  length  of  time. 
The    most  decent  of  the  clergy,  in  point  of  dress,   is   not   at 
present  so  much  confined  as  any  one  would  be  who  obeyed  the 
canon  literally,   or  who  was  obliged  to  conform  strictly  to  any 
new  canon.     6.  It  might  shew  how  custom,  in  things  naturally 
arbitrary  and  indifferent,   once  prevalent,  is  right,   though  at 

first  it  was  wrong ;  for  the  departure  from  the  precise  dress  of 
the  canon  has,  in  all  probability,  been  faulty  at  first.  7. 
Lastly,  it  is  not  the  least  important  thing  for  us  to  learn,  that, 
while  particulars  of  an  indifferent  nature  vary,  general  princi 
ples  continue  firm  and  immovable,  and  are  of  eternal  obliga 
tion.  Our  obligation  to  be  subject  to  ecclesiastical  authority  is 
not  in  the  least  impaired.  The  duty  of  decency,  of  providing 

77  things3  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men,  is  as  necessary  as  ever ; 
and  indeed  these  general  principles  are  well  laid  down  in  the 
canon.     To  act  according  to  these  principles  is  the  true  intent 
and  meaning  of  our  engagements,  and  that  must  always  be  ob 
served — that   is    wholly  indispensable.      In   all  changes  and 
relaxations  we  must  be  extremely   cautious   that  our   princi 
ples  of  honesty  and  sincerity  do  not  get  weakened  or  relaxed. 
And,  if  doubtful  cases  arise,  it  must  be  our  constant  care  to 
keep  on  the  safe  side,  and  never  to  venture   nearer  than  we 
cannot  avoid  to  the  limits  and  boundaries  of  our  duty. 

3  Ka\«,  Rom.  chap.  xii.  verse  17. 


392  SENSE    OF    ARTICLES  [III.  ix.  1. 

II, 

CHAPTER    IX.  78 

OF    THE    USE    OF    HISTORY    IN    DETERMINING     THE    SENSE 
OF    ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 

FIRST,  let  us  take  a  general  view  of  the  subject  of  this 
Chapter. 

1 .  We  now  seem  to  have  treated  sufficiently  on  such  senses 
of  forms,  as  may  sometimes  be  acquired  by  time  and  change  of 
circumstances :  let  us  return  to  the  primitive  sense.,  against 
which  no  prejudice  is  entertained  ;  which  seems  the  most  com 
mon,  and  most  free  from  evil. 

It  is  an  important  mistake  which  men  are  apt  to  make*  con 
cerning  the  primitive  sense  of  ancient  forms,  that  they  are  to 
apply  themselves  wholly  to  grammar  and  etymology,  in  order 
to  understand  them  ;  whereas,  some  of  the  greatest  difficulties 
which  attend  the  construction  of  them  are  to  be  obviated  by 
history.  To  illustrate  this  is  now  our  proper  business ;  but, 
before  we  wholly  quit  our  connexion  with  the  foregoing  chap 
ter,  let  us  observe,  that  history  must  be  of  great  use  in  giving 
us  a  right  idea  of  the  new  and  acquired  meaning  of  words,  when 
any  change  has  taken  place.  This  is  too  evident  to  need  any 
full  explanation  :  it  must  be  history  which  must  shew  us  the 
nature  of  each  tacit  reformation,  its  causes  and  effects ;  and  on 
these  must  the  new  and  acquired  sense  of  words  always  depend. 

Nor  shall  we  have  a  better  opportunity  than  the  present  to 
observe,  that  there  is  one  way  in  which  words  acquire,  or, 
more  strictly,  seem  to  acquire,  new  senses,  not  yet  mentioned  : — 
by  readers  attending  to  grammar  and  etymology  and  custom,  79 
while  they  neglect  history.  Etymology  may  make  a  sense  seem 
to  be  a  right  one,  which  really  was  not  the  sense  of  the  writer; 
and  modern  customs  may  make  us  affix  modern  meanings  to  old 
words,  when  those  meanings  were  not  really  in  the  minds  of  the 
persons  who  used  those  words.  These  are  not  so  properly  new 
senses,  as  mistakes  of  the  primitive  sense ;  and  these  mistaken 
senses  are  always  taken  for  primitive  senses1.  A  man  might 

1  People  who  read  the  English  Bible  j  for  conception,  1  Cor.  ii.  9.    &GCIKTJKOS, 

sometimes  affix  modern  ideas  to  ancient  j  apt  to  teach,  1  Tim.  iii.  2.  2  Tim.  ii.  24. 

words  :—<j>wvti,  voice,  Act.  xxiv.  21.    tj  j  No/zi/cos,  a.  lawyer.  Matt.  xxii.  !>;>.  Tit.  iii. 

ooos,   wai/,  Act.  ix.  2.     Lust,   passim:  |  13.  Provide  things,  KU\U,  /ton  eat  ?  Rom. 


Ps.  i-xxviii.  Itt,  meat  for  your  lust;  the 
lust  of  the  eye,  world.     K.apoia}  heart, 


xii.  I/.     Worship  (with  my  body,  &c.) 
Luke  xiv.  10. 


III.  ix.   1.]  AS    DETERMINED    BY    HISTORY.  393 

II.  use  the  terms  knave  and  villain  with  modern  ideas,  and  think 
he  used  them  in  the  primitive  sense. 

This  observed,  we  may  proceed  to  our  proper  business. 
In  what  way  history  is  wanted,  for  investigating  the  primitive 
sense  of  ancient  forms,  has  been2  already  in  some  degree  ex 
plained.  All  expressions  contain  references  to  circumstances 
which  history  only  can  point  out.  Indeed,  history  can  only 
point  them  out  imperfectly;  but  it  can  approximate  nearer  to  a 
right  conception  of  them,  than  any  thing  else  can.  The  word 
"accursed"  occurs  in  one  of  our  articles:  if  we  depend  upon 
etymology  to  teach  us  its  meaning,  we  shall  be  misled  ;  but,  if 
we  apply  to  history,  we  may  get  a  competent  notion  of  it. 
History  will  teach  us  the  customary  manner  of  condemning 
errors,  and  custom  is  the  jus  et  ?iorma'3  loquendi.  We  shall 
see  that  anathemas  usually  accompanied  such  condemnation, 

80  especially  when  heretics  were  excommunicated  ;  and  therefore, 
that  "accursed'*  means  only  unworthy,  on  account  of  some 
supposed  error,  to  be  a  member  of  some  Christian  church  sup 
posed  to  be  particularly  pure.  Bishop  Pearson  shews  us4, 
that  we  are  to  consider  the  history  of  the  Septuagint,  in  order 
to  acquire  a  right  notion  of  the  word  Kvpios*  The  title 
Defender  of  the  Faith  is  not  taken  in  its  true  sense5  by 
those  who  are  not  aware,  that  it  was  given  by  Pope  Leo  x.  to 
Henry  viu.  for  defending  the  Popish  religion  by  a  small 
treatise.  We  may  add,  that  the  true  meaning  of  the  King's 
Declaration  prefixed  to  our  39  Articles  is  to  be  investigated  by 
considering  the  occasion  of  it.  Calvinism  seems  to  have  been 
growing  from  the  time  of  Queen  Mary,  when  several  Protestant 
divines  were  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  foreign  countries,  where 
it  flourished,  down  to  the  reign  of  Charles  i.;  in  the  third0 
year  of  which,  (I  take  for  granted,)  the  Declaration,  or  In 
junction,  was  published.  About  this  time,  the  Calvinists  found 
that  our  Articles  were  not  strong  enough  for  them,  in  favour 
of  predestination,  irresistible  grace,  and  other  doctrines  height 
ening  the  divine  agency  in  the  salvation  of  man.  They  began 
to  enlarge  their  meaning,  and  turn  it  to  their  own  purpose,  in 
various  ways  ;  which  caused  strong  opposition  from  other  di- 

2  Chap.  vi.  sect.  1,  referring  to  B.  I.  i   and  in  Bp.  Burnet's  Dedication  of  his 

Chap.  x.            3  Hor.  Art.  Poet.  1.71.  Exposition  of  the  Articles; — but  it  can 

4  On  the  Creed :  under  "  Our  Lord"  '   only  be  proper  by  some  kind  of  analogy  : 
p.  1-lfJ,  fol.  it  misleads. 

5  This    title    is  used  in    the    King's  "'  Chap.  vii.  sect.  5.     Sec  the  end  of 
Declaration    prefixed    to    the  Articles  ;  ,   the  Oxford  pamphlet  on  the  1/th  Art. 


394  SENSE    OF    ARTICLES  [III.  ix.  1. 

vines.  I  cannot  say  that  I  know  very  particularly  how  far  they  II. 
went  beyond  any  thing  which  is  found  in  the  Articles ;  nor 
might  it  be  proper  to  dwell  upon  the  subject  in  this  place; 
but  the  Declaration  was  made  to  prevent  such  freedoms ;  and,  81 
as  it  was  prefixed  to  a  fresh  publication  of  the  Articles,  there 
is  an  appearance  as  if  they  were  coming  to  be  much  neglected 
or  abused.  Archbishop  Laud  was  an  Arminian ;  and  he,  with 
some  other  bishops,  framed  the  Declaration  :  the  expressions 
therefore  contained  in  it  about  plain,  literal,  grammatical  sense; 
about  preachers  and  readers  (or  those  who  read  lectures)  in  the 
Universities  affixing  their  own  meaning,  drawing  aside  articles, 
&c. — are  all  to  be  understood  with  a  particular  reference  to 
what  the  authors  had  in  view.  What  confirms  this  notion  is, 
that  we  find  the  Puritans  (who  were  rigid  Calvinists1)  com 
plaining  of  this  Declaration,  as  abridging  their  liberty  of 
preaching.  Neal,  in  his  History  of  the  Puritans,  says,  "  Sure 
ly  there  was  never  such  a  confused,  unintelligible  declaration 
printed.1*1  It  does  indeed  use  general  expressions  with  par 
ticular  meanings.  It  speaks  also  as  if  some  teachers  neglected 
the  Articles,  and  yet  maintained  that  they  were  favourable  to 
them  ;  but  this  was  an  inconsistency  in  the  Puritans,  rather 
than  in  the  Declaration.  It  thwarts  the  Puritans,  and  yet 
forbids  affixing  new  senses  "  either  way"  that  is,  either  in 
favour  of  Calvinists  or  Arminians ;  but  this  might  be  for  the 
sake  of  appearing  impartial,  and  of  promoting  silence  on  inex 
plicable  doctrines. 

An  additional  reason  for  concluding  that  predestination, 
&c.  are  particularly  aimed  at  in  this  Declaration,  is  the  quota 
tion  from  the  17th  Article,  and  the  expression  "curious  points, 
in  which  the  present  differences  lie:"  the  word  "curious" 
occurs  several  times. 

The  Declaration  relates  to  discipline  as  well  as  doctrine ; 
but  the  parts  of  discipline  infringed  by  the  Puritans  about  1628    82 
must  be  understood  as  particularly  meant. 

I  will  say  no  more  on  the  general  nature  of  the  subject 
immediately  before  us  ;  but  proceed  to  other  reflections  ;  only 
observing  first,  that  I  would  engage,  if  I  was  possessed  of  a 
perfect  historical  knowledge,  to  make  every  thing  in  our  Arti 
cles  clear,  intelligible,  and  familiar2; — not  to  make  every  doc 
trine  so,  but  every  manner  of  stating  a  doctrine.  But  then, 

1  See  Collier's  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  n.    I       2  Strype's  Annals  for  1562.  chap,  xxvii. 
p.  746.  p.  282. 


III.  ix.  2—4.]        AS     DETERMINED    BY    HISTORY.  395 

II*  by  historical  knowledge  I  must  be  understood  to  mean,  not 
only  a  knowledge  of  facts,  but  of  opinions  and  feelings.  In 
deed,  it  may  be  deemed  a  knowledge  of  facts,  if  we  know  that 
such  an  opinion  had,  in  fact  or  reality,  many  favourers  at  such 
a  time ;  that  such  an  affection  or  sentiment,  as  zeal,  disgust,  &c. 
was  actually  prevalent  in  such  a  set  or  party  of  men.  If  any 
one  finds  any  expression  obscure  or  uncouth  in  our  Articles,  he 
may  venture  to  ascribe  the  obscurity  to  the  imperfection  of  his 
historical  knowledge. 

2.  We  might  open  what  we  have  now  to  say  by  observing, 
that  the  articles  of  one  sect  may  be,  in  some  measure,  affected, 
as  to  their  sense,  by  changes  in  other  sects.  We  have  hitherto 
conceived  the  meaning  of  words  to  be  affected  only  by  the  dis 
covery  of  errors  inherent  in  them ;  by  internal  faults,  and  in 
ternal  changes :  we  now  would  conceive  how  their  meaning  may 
be  affected  by  external  changes.  To  say,  that  the  force  of 
words  expressing  our  doctrines  must  continue  the  same,  what 
ever  changes  happen  in  other  doctrines,  is  to  forget  the  end 
and  design  of  articles  of  religion,  and  all  that  has  been  ex 
plained  in  the  first  and  fifth  chapters.  In  order  to  see  this,  let 
us  recollect  what  that  end  or  design  is. 

83  3.  The  end  or  design  of  a  body  of  doctrines  is  to  maintain 
unity  of  doctrine  :  the  intention  of  each  particular  article  is  to 
find  a  remedy  for  some  actual  error,  which  occasions  some  dis 
turbance,  so  as  to  frustrate  some  end  of  social  religion,  or 
which  seems  very  likely  to  do  so.  This  it  is  which  dis 
tinguishes  a  set  of  articles  from  a  system  of  theology,  or  a  ser 
mon  ;  and  a  very  important  distinction  I  take  this  to  be.  The 
design  of  a  system  and  a  sermon  is,  to  explain  and  enforce  all 
doctrines;  whereas  articles  only  mention  those  by  which  one 
society  is  kept  separate  from  another.  A  set  of  articles  is,  as 
it  were,  a  partition-wall ;  not  intended  for  war,  so  much  as  to 
keep  all  things  quiet :  like  the  walls  of  one's  house,  to  let  the 
domestic  society  within  pursue  its  proper  business  in  security. 

4.  If  this  notion  be  allowed,  each  article  should  be  in 
terpreted,  and  understood,  and  assented  to,  as  it  would  have 
been  if  the  error  at  which  it  aims  had  been  specified  ;  that  is, 
however  general  the  expression  of  any  article  may  be,  the  inter 
pretation  of  it  should  be  limited  and  restrained  to  particular 
cases.  This  appears  from  hence,  that,  as  soon  as  the  article 
was  made,  it  would  be  so  interpreted.  The  reasons  of  its  be 
ing  made  would  appear  to  every  one,  and  no  one  would  think 


396  >KXSE  OF  ARTICLES  [III.  ix.  5, 6. 

of  extending  it  beyond  those  reasons;  and,  if  this  would  be  II. 
the  case  whilst  the  article  was  most  clearly  understood,  it  cer 
tainly  ought  to  be  at  all  times,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  make  it 
so.  Propositions  ought  not  to  grow  more  general  and  unlimited 
in  their  interpretation  by  age ;  but  there  is  a  false  appearance, 
which  misguides:  they  seem1  to  grow  more  general,  as  refer 
ences  are  forgotten,  and  that  false  appearance  ought  to  be 
forrccffd.  It  seems  to  deceive  many ;  insomuch  that  they 
would  be  inclined  to  say,  '  Shall  I  assent  to  an  erroneous  pro-  84 
position  expressed  in  general  terms,  which  has  a  plain  mean 
ing,  merely  because  I  see  that  some  particular  errors,  condemn 
ed  by  that  general  proposition,  have  been  rectified  ?  because  it 
is  in  part  useless  ?'  We  may  at  least  answer 'to  such  a  question, 
let  our  reasoning  be  remembered,  let  it  be  brought  to  bear,  let 
it  do  what  it  can  ;  and  the  consequence  would  generally  be,  in 
practice,  that  the  difficulty  would  be  solved,  and  the  general 
proposition  given  up,  as  unmeaning.  But  the  reasons  for  such 
restricted  interpretation  of  articles,  as  is  here  mentioned,  will 
allow  of  a  fuller  explication. 

5.  1.   If  propositions  are  to  be  understood  absolutely,  and 
not  as  aimed  at  any  particular  errors,  those  who  compiled  them 
must  have  acted  wrongly,  and  have  laid  a  greater  restraint  than 
they  had  any  right  to  lay.      Those  who  require  declarations  of 
opinion  are  only  to  require  them  when  some  good  end  is  to  be 
answered  by  them — when  they  are  in  a  manner  necessary  to 
promote  the  ends  of  social  religion2.      And,  when  we  look  back 
upon  mens  actions,  in  all  doubtful  cases,   they  are  not  to  be 
supposed   to  have  meant  what  it  would  have  been   wrong  for 
them    to   mean.       Id  voluisse    intelliguntur,    quod   velle    eos 
oportuit'\     What   men  had  no  right  to  do,   is  treated  as  if  it 
had  not  been  done.      If  a  man  had  no  right  to  execute  a  deed 
°f  gift)  such  a  deed  is  unmeaning;   and  if  he  had  in  part  only 
such  a  right,  the  validity  of  the  deed  will  be  partial. 

6.  2.  Another  reason  why  we  should  interpret  any  body  of 
doctrines,  to    which  assent  is  required,  by  a  reference  to  the 
times,   is,   because  we  find  that  something  of  the  sort  has  been 
done  even  by  compilers  of  articles  themselves.     I  mean  to  refer 

to  the  :;.">th  Article  of  our  Church,   but  only  as  I  would  refer  85 
to  any  other  fact.     A  set  of  very  learned  and*  prudent  men  say, 
that  certain  compositions,   by  which  the  doctrines  of  a  church 
are  to   be  taught  to   the  people,  are   peculiarly   suited    to  the 
'  ('h:ii'-  Y:-  scct-  ]-  -  C!iap.  v.  »  Powell,  p.  3f>8. 


Ill.ix.  7.]  AS     DETERMINED     BY     HISTORY.  397 

II.  times;  that  is,  are  probably  more  suited  to  one  situation  of 
things  than  another.  By  such  an  expression  we  are  called 
upon,  in  assenting,  to  see  how  long  the  suitableness  lasts :  we 
can  tell  that  only  by  history  ;  and,  if  we  find  the  times  wholly 
to  change,  so  must  the  force  of  the  article4.  It  may  indeed  be 
said,  why  is  reference  to  times  here  expressed,  if  it  is  always 
implied  ?  does  not  its  being  expressed  here  prove  that  it  would 
be  always  expressed,  if  it  was  meant  ?  I  presume  the  answer  to 
this  objection  is,  that  in  the  particular  expedient  of  teaching  by 
homilies,  a  change  was  to  be  clearly  foreseen.  Though  there  was 
a  very  great  scarcity  of  approved, preachers  then,  (for  the  Papists 
and  Puritans  were  possessed  of  a  great  share  of  the  clerical 
learning,)  yet  it  was  not  probable  that  this  would  continue; 
and  a  change  distinctly  foreseen  was  to  be  provided  for.  Our 
natural  conclusion  is,  that,  had  other  changes  been  foreseen, 
some  provision  would  have  been  made  for  them  also ;  and  that 
what  could  not  be  foreseen  must  be  provided  for  when  a  pro 
vision  appeared  to  be  wanted.  But  we  should  often  deprive 
ourselves  of  the  power  of  making  such  provision  for  changes,  if 
we  interpreted  articles  universally,  and  not  as  provisions  for 
particular  exigencies. 

7-  ?>.  It  is  always  a  fair  way  of  judging  of  the  sense  of  any 
compositions,  (if  we  use  it  fairly,)  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place 
of  the  authors.  If  we  do  this,  in  the  present  case,  to  the  best 

86  of  our  power,  we  must  conclude,  that  the  compilers  of  articles 
would  not  provide  any,  would  not  desire  to  provide  any,  but  as 
remedies  for  pressing  inconveniences.  We  have  before  said 
that  they  ought  not ;  now  we  say  that,  of  choice,  they  would 
not.  Let  us  conceive  a  council  compiling  articles.  They  con 
demn  and  exclude  several  errors  and  heresies ;  they  get  warm  ; 
a  zealot  says,  ( let  us  proscribe  this  error  ;'  '  who  professes  it?1 — 
'  no  one  at  present,  but  some  one  may  hereafter,  and  we  had 
better  anticipate  and  provide  a  remedy  beforehand.1  What  can 
we  conceive  the  wiser  part  of  the  council  to  urge,  but  some 
thing  of  this  sort  ?  l  No  !  we  have  errors  sufficient  to  proscribe 
which  really  exist ;  we  will  not  imagine  new  ones ;  if  any 
should  arise  in  future  we  will  leave  them  to  posterity :  perhaps 
our  provision  might  suggest  an  error,  which  would  not  else 
have  been  thought  of ;  and  involve  our  successors  in  many 
needless  difficulties.'  If  such  would  be  the  determination,  we 

4  Dr.  Balguy  thinks  that  we  now  are      stead  of  sermons.   Something  was  said  on 
allowed,  not  required,  to  read  homilies  in-       teaching  by  homilies,  Chap.  v.  sect.  5,  6. 


398 


SENSE    OF    ARTICLES 


[III.  ix.  8,  9. 


should  receive  and  interpret  articles  as  formed  after  this  man-  II. 
ner.  And  we  may  add,  that  the  41st  Article  of  our  Church,  as 
it  stood  for  ten  years,  against  Millenarians,  was  expunged 
when  it  seemed  (probably)  to  be  unnecessary,  though  the 
doctrine  of  a  Millennium  would  continue  the  same ;  nay,  was 
not  revived  when  the  new  Millenarians  or  fifth  monarchy  men 
arose  in  the  17th  century. 

An  additional  consideration  is,  that  if  articles  are  supposed 
to  be  in  force,  where  no  remedy  is  wanting,  why  should  so  few 
articles  be  made  ?  why  leave  so  many  parts  of  a  religious  sys 
tem  not  enforced1?  why  make  new  ones  in  our  Church  in  1562, 
and  never  since  ?  and  then  only  on  a  very  particular  occasion  ?  87 
on  occasion  of  a  change  in  the  national  religion  ?  Bishop  Burnet2 
shews  that  our  Church  was  compelled,  by  the  exigency  of  the 
case,  to  make  articles  when  it  did. 

8.  4.  The  last  reason  I  shall  mention  why  we  should  in 
terpret  human  expressions  of  doctrines  with  a  strict  reference 
to  the  occasion  is,  because  the  words  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
are  undoubtedly  to  be  so  interpreted.     This  has  been  shewn3: 
but  it  will  be  proper  to  repeat  an  instance  or  two;  because  that 
kind  of  restricted  interpretation,  which  we  say  is  reasonable,  will 
not,  after  all  we  can  urge,  appear  nearly  so  much  so  without  as 
with   such   instances.     Take  Acts  x.  344,  and   Matt,  xviii.    3. 
(compare  1  Cor.  xiv.  20.) 

9.  From  these  reasons  we  conclude,    that,    notwithstand 
ing   articles  of   religion   are   expressed    in   general  terms,   we 
should  interpret  them  as  mere  antidotes  against  particular  re 
ligious  maladies,  actually  existing  at  the  time  when  they  were 
formed,  of  which  we  can  get  no  knowledge  but  from  history. 

If  our  reasoning  has  been  just,  we  may  deduce  from  it  some 
inferences,  which  may  tend  to  rectify  our  notions,  and  free  each 
honest  mind  from  groundless  doubt  and  anxiety. 

1.  We  may  deduce,  that  an  article  of  religion,  or  a  clause 
of  a  creed,  or  liturgy  of  any  church,  may  become  a  dead  letter, 
merely  by  improvements  in  the  forms  used  by  other  churches. 
For,  if  the  malady  no  longer  exists,  the  prescription  against  it 
becomes  useless  and  of  no  force :  if  the  heresy  ceases,  the  pro 
vision  to  keep  a  church  clear  from  it  ceases,  in  effect,  to  all 


1  The  Puritans  have  complained  of  the 
number  of  doctrines  which  are  omitted  in 
our  Articles.  See  Bingham's  Apology, 
B.  II.  chap.  xiii.  or  "Works,  vol.  n.  p.74ti. 


-  Introduction  to  Art.  p.  5,  b"vo. 

3  Book  I.  chap.  x. 

4  Ibid.     See  also  Balguy,  Charge  2d, 
pp.  UK.,  197. 


III.  ix.  10.]  AS    DETERMINED    BY    HISTORY.  399 

II.  intents  and  purposes.     We  have  before5  spoken  of  forms  losing 

88  their  force,   but    that  was   in    a  different   way — by  internal 
corrections ;  we  now   speak  of  external  corrections.      In   our 
form  of  infant  baptism,   the  sponsors  are  enjoined  to   provide 
that    the   infant    be    taught    the   creed,    &c.    "in  the  vulgar 
tongue"     This    is   a  remedy   against   teaching    the   creed   in 
Latin ;  but,  as  sponsors  have  now  no  idea  of  any  such  thing, 
the  direction  (as  far  as  respects  Latin)  is  become  a  dead  letter; 
and  so  would  the  whole  24th  Article,   if  the  Papists  came  to 
have  "public  prayer,"  and  "minister  the  sacraments,"  in  the 
vulgar  tongues6.      Some  clauses  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  are 
opposed  to  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  doctrines;  but,   if  no 
one  professed  those  doctrines  such  clauses  are  virtually  extinct : 
. — not  false ;  for  what  is  extinct  can  contain  neither  truth  nor 
falsehood.      An  heresy,  which  is  forgotten,  is  extinct  to  those 
who  have  forgotten  it  ;   and  so  it  should   be  deemed  to  those 
who  have  had  no  opportunity  of  knowing  it. 

This  reasoning  affects  chiefly  the  main  design  of  an  article; 
perhaps  little  expressions,  thrown  in  with  a  view  of  making  the 
composition  totus  teres  atque  rotundus,  may  not  have  been  in 
tended  as  antidotes  ;  but  still,  as  they  make  parts  of  articles 
which  were  so,  and  as  the  compilers  had  no  right  to  impose 
what  was  not  so,  they  should  be  considered  as  obliterated  with 
the  main  substance.  Indeed  some  articles  might  have  been  in 
serted,  because  others  would  be  maimed  without  them  ;  but 
should  not  these  be  considered  as  incorporated  with  the  rest, 
and  share  their  fate  ? 

10.  2.  It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that  articles  are 
not  to  be  considered  as  inconsistent  with  any  doctrines  which 

89  were  unknown  to  the  compilers  of  them.     It  is  doubtful  whe 
ther  such  doctrines  would  have  been  thought  erroneous ;  or,  if 
they  had  been,  whether  they  would  have  been  thought  likely  to 
occasion  any  disturbance:   nay,  if  they  would,  still  no  remedy 
was  provided  by  those  who  alone  had  authority  to  provide  one; 
and   therefore,  if  articles  are  remedies,  such  doctrine  has  no 
thing   to    do    with    articles.      Our   6th    Article    says,    "  Holy 
Scripture   containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  :"  is  it 
therefore  wrong  for  one  of  our  teachers  to  enforce  moral  obliga 
tions  ?     Dr.   Balguy   seems  to  think  it  is  not7;    but  yet  Dr. 

5  Chap.  vi.  sect.  1.    Chap.  vii.  sect.  1.    |       7  Charge  2d,  p.  1815;  but  chiefly  see 


8  See  also  the  33d  Article,    sect.   !>, 
riff htly  out  off." 


p.  134. 


400  SENSE  OF  ARTICLES.      [III.  ix.  1 1 ,  12. 

Balguy  does  not  go  against  our  6th  Article:  it  was  a  remedy  II. 
against  Popish  traditions.  And  suppose  nothing  said  in  Scrip 
ture  against  gaming,  duelling,  suicide,  &c.  yet  a  minister  of  our 
Church  might  lawfully  preach  against  them,  and  on  moral  prin 
ciples,  notwithstanding,  at  least,  the  6th  Article ;  conceiving  the 
Article  to  have  only  Popery  in  view.  Bishop  Pearson1  pro 
fesses  to  reason  with  even  Atheists  on  principles  which  they 
would  allow — and  also  with  Jews.  It  is  conceivable  that  our 
reformers,  though  excellently  well  skilled  in  the  Scriptures, 
might  not  attend  sufficiently  to  morality,  nor  see  how  the  study 
of  it  conspired  with  Scripture  to  make  men  good  and  happy  ; 
nor  perceive  that  improvements  in  morality  afforded  additional 
internal  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

11.  3.   If  articles  are  not  inconsistent  with  new  doctrines, 
they  cannot  be  with  new  solutions  of  old   doctrines,   such   as 
predestination,   Trinity,   &c.      Compilers  could  not  provide  a 
remedy  against  a  poison  unknown.     If  it  be  said,  it  is  clear  that 
they  would  have  provided  against  a  certain  solution,  if  it  had 
been   published   soon  enough,    then    I    should   say,    that   such  ,QO 
solution  could  not  strictly  be  called  new. 

12.  4.  Lastly,  it  seems  to  follow  from  what  has  been  said, 
that  when  any  common   person,   without  any  fault  of  his,  is 
ignorant  of  heretical  notions  aimed  at  in  any  clause  of  any  con 
fession  of  faith,   he  need  not  be  scrupulous  of  giving  a  verbal 
assent  to  it.      We  have  lately  observed,   that,  when  a  person 
has  no  opportunity  of  knowing  an  heretical  notion,  the  case  is 
the  same  as  if  that  notion    did  not  exist ;   and  therefore  any 
article  against  it  becomes  a  dead  letter ;   and  what  a  person  has 
no  opportunity,  humanly  speaking,   of  knowing,    he  is  igno 
rant  of  without  any  fault  of  his  own.      If  so,  it  may  be  urged, 
why  should  we  study  these  matters  ?      "  If  ignorance  is  bliss, 
'tis  folly  to  be  wise."      But,  if  a  man  be  ignorant  through  his 
own  fault,  he  is  punishable — though  rather  for  negligence  than 
for  insincerity;   but,  as  that  cannot  be  supposed  to  lessen  his 
punishment,  it  is  best  to  consider  only  the  case  of  harmless  ig 
norance.     As  far  as  a  man  is  innocently  ignorant,  so  far  lie  may 
trust  that  he  need  not  trouble  himself  about  either  his  assent  or 
dissent.      I  suppose  all  men  are  ignorant  in  some  degree  of  the 
references  by  which  the  sense  of  words  is  to  be  limited;  though 
different  men  in  very  different  degrees.      Every  degree  of  such 
ignorance  will  throw  a  kind  of  a  mist  over  the  expressions  used  ; 

1  Preface  to  Creed. 


III.  X.I. ]  UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.  401 

II.  the  general  effect  of  which  will  be,  that  a  man  will  have  no 
decided  opinion  against  a  proposition  or  doctrine,  and  yet  will 
not  be  clear  for  it.  Even  a  teacher  of  religion  may  content 
himself  under  such  a  state  of  mind  (as  every  one  must  be  under 
it  in  some  measure),  so  long  as  he  is  quite  satisfied  that  he  does 
what  can  be  required  of  him,  in  reason,  to  inform  himself,  ac 
cording  to  the  opportunities  which  his  situation  affords  him, 

91  and  to  clear  up  his  obscurities  and  the  indistinctness  of  his 
notions,  more  and  more,  from  time  to  time. 

I  conclude  this  chapter  with  once  more  observing,  that  the 
thing  which  of  all  things  will  be  the  most  effectual  towards 
giving  us  right  notions  of  articles,  creeds,  confessions  of  faith, 
is,  the  study  of  history.  The  parts  of  Scripture  on  which 
they  are  built  must  be  known ;  but  that  part  of  our  duty 
is  more  easy,  and  better  defined,  than  the  duty  of  searching 
into  history. 


CHAPTER    X. 

OF    ASSENTING    TO    PROPOSITIONS    WHICH    ARE 
UNINTELLIGIBLE. 

1.  THE  transition  from  the  last  chapter  to  this  is  not  dif 
ficult.  In  the  last,  we  left  the  person,  who  was  not  much 
conversant  in  history,  treating  some  parts  of  forms  as  unmean 
ing,  because  he  did  not  know  what  disorders  they  had  been  in 
tended  to  remedy.  Words  which  are  unmeaning  must  be  on  the 
same  footing  with  such  as  are  unintelligible.  And,  in  Chapters 
vi.  vii.  viii.  and  ix.  we  treated  of  propositions  which  had  lost 
their  meaning. 

It  may  perhaps  occur  that  all  the  subjects  in  this  Book2, 
since  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  Chapter,  were  to  have  some 
relation  to  antiquated  forms — to  forms  as  having  continued  for 
a  great  length  of  time.  Any  one  who  recollects  this  may  say, 
what  have  unintelligible  propositions  to  do  with  age?  but 
we  were  to  be  allowed  to  introduce  subjects,  which  might  be 
treated  independently,  so  long  as  there  was  any  advantage 
in  introducing  them  in  this  place  rather  than  in  any  other, 
where  religious  society  was  treated.  Now  it  seems  as  if  myste- 

'-'  Preface  to  chap.  vi. 

VOL.  I. 


402  UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.        [III.  X.  2,  3. 

rious  doctrines  would  be  more  calmly  considered  when  they  II. 
were  old  than  when  they  were  new.  When  new,  people  are 
violent  about  them  ;  and  the  terms  in  which  they  are  expressed 
are  so  often  repeated,  so  echoed  and  re-echoed,  that  they  grow 
familiar ;  and  people  can  scarce  persuade  themselves  that  they 
do  not  understand  them. 

It  is  proper  that  unintelligible  propositions  should  be  treat-  Q3 
ed  somewhere  in  the  present  Book  ;  as  they  materially  affect 
religious  society,  and  men  may  run  into  two  faulty  extremes 
about  them.  Too  easily  receiving  them  leads  to  error,  and 
fruitless  controversy,  and  sometimes  to  needless  anxiety  ;  and 
too  easily  rejecting  them  tends  to  ignorance  and  disorder,  and 
finally  to  the  obstruction  of  religious  authority. 

2.  We  may  open  the  subject  by  observing,  that  many  un 
intelligible  propositions  may  arise  in  natural  religion,  and  in 
other  subjects  connected  with  it.     Things  have  been  affirmed  of 
the   soul  without  distinct  ideas;    and  propositions  have  been 
made  this  way  and  that,  as  if  it  was  more  known  than  it  is. 
The  soul  is  the  heart1,   the  blood  surrounding  the  heart;   it  is 
the  brain,  seated  in  the  brain ;   it  is  Jire,  it  is  harmony,  it  is 
number:  all  these  things,  and  more,  have  been  said.     "God 
is  eternal"  for  "ex  nihilo  nihiljit."     Fate  governs  all  things, 
even  those  beings  who  can  choose  how  they  will   act.     That 
Deity  which   created  all  the  sources  of  evil  is  infinitely  good. 
The  same  Being  acts  lay  fixed  laws,   and  interferes  perpetually 
by  his  particular  providence.     No  rational  man  will  say,  that  he 
clearly  understands  these  propositions.     Velleius,  the  Epicurean, 
in  Cic.  de  Naturd  Deorum,  says,  the  immateriality  of  God,  or  his 
freedom  from  body2,  is  unintelligible.     We  should  find  it  very 
difficult  to  conceive  the  Supreme  Being  clogged  with  a  body. 

3.  Many  of  the  same  propositions  arise  in  revealed  religion; 
but  the  inquiry  into  their  meaning  assumes  a  different  shape;  0.4 
because,   when  we  have  things  communicated  to  us  from  above 
by  language,   we  have  to  consider  and  investigate  the  precise 
meaning  of  expressions.      In  natural  religion,  we  have  no  words 

or  expressions  to  consider.  Revealed  religion  adds  moreover 
to  the  mysteries  of  natural.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word" — "and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
God."  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God — he  is  called  God — 

1  Tusc.  Disp.  i.  9,  10.  /XOTOI/  ;  id  quale  esse  possit,  intelligi  non 

2  Quod  vero  sine  corpore  ullo  Deum       potest.     De  Nat.  D.  i.  12. 
(  Plato)  volt  esse,  ut  Grteci  dicunt  «W-   | 


III.  X.  4.]  UNINTELLIGIBLE     PROPOSITIONS.  403 

II.  the  angels  of  God  worship  him.  The  Creator  made  the  worlds 
by  his  Son.  The  Holy  Spirit  abides  with  us,  guides  us,  in 
habits  our  bodies,  the  bodies  of  all  men  at  once — as  his  temple. 
There  is  a  connection  between  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  which  makes  it  proper  that  Christians  should  be  bap 
tized  in  their  joint  names;  and  that  those  names  should  be 
frequently  mentioned  together  in  a  solemn  manner,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others.  A  virgin  was  overshadowed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  brought  forth  a  Son  without  having  known 
man  ;  that  Son  was  both  perfectly  human  and  perfectly  divine5. 
Prayer  is  to  be  offered  to  an  all-wise  Being,  who  will  give  us 
what  is  best  for  us. 

The  difficulties  attending  these  propositions  have  engaged 
men  in  solving  them.  Sometimes  it  has  been  seen  that  solu 
tions  were  wrong,  even  when  no  distinct  idea  could  be  attained 
of  what  was  right ;  and  attempts  to  explain,  with  defences  of 
the  solutions,  have  greatly  increased  the  number  of  unintelligible 
propositions.  It  seems  as  if  we  should  add,  to  the  number  of 
unintelligible  propositions,  many  human  forms  of  speaking, 
particularly  those  hinted  at  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter ; 
95  such  as  have  become  unmeaning,  either  by  tacit  reformations, 
or  by  the  extinction  of  those  errors  which  they  were  intended 
to  remedy. 

4.  What  has  been  said  shews  the  importance  of  trying  to 
make  unintelligible  questions  as  little  inconvenient  as  possible. 
They  have  proved  inconvenient,  not  only  in  occasioning  dis 
sension  and  violation  of  charity,  but  also  in  causing  a  greater 
degree  of  uneasiness ,  'when  assent  has  been  required  to  them, 
than  reason  and  good  sense  could  justify. 

It  might  lessen  this  last-mentioned  evil  (of  uneasiness)  to  con 
sider,  that,  if  propositions  are  wholly  unintelligible,  they  really 
express  nothing;  if  they  seem  to  wear  an  affirmative  shape, 
they  affirm  nothing  ;  if  a  negative,  they  deny  nothing.  Animal 
spirits  are  eirreXe^eta — does  not  differ  from,  animal  spirits  are 
not4  ei/rcXe^eta,  The  gods  are  images  flying  off*  from  bodies5; 
so  affirmed  Democritus  :  no,  says  Parmenides,  I  deny  it.  God 
is  a  crown6,  surrounding  the  heaven,  and  by  the  brightness 
and  ardour  of  its  light  keeping  the  orb  together :  will  you  as- 


3  Translators  of  Scripture,  if  honest, 
will  sometimes  leave  unintelligible  pro 
positions — See  about  Symmachus,  B.  I. 


4  Tusc.  Disp.  i.  10. 

5  De  Nat.  Deorum.  i.  12. 
0  Ib.  sect.  11. 


chap.  vi.  sect.  7. 

26 o 


404  UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.  [III.   X.  5. 

sent  to  the  affirmative  or  the  negative  ?  they  seem  equally  un-  II. 
intelligible.     Indeed,  if  either  subject  or  predicate  is  unintelli 
gible,   the  proposition  must  be  so. 

Yet  it  may  be  proper  to  observe,  according  to  what  was 
just  now  hinted,  that  propositions  unintelligible  on  the  whole, 
or  what  would  be  allowed  unintelligible  if  taken  absolutely, 
without  any  particular  respect  or  relation  to  others,  may  be  in 
telligible  relatively,  or  in  some  respects,  as  for  instance,  in 
denying  errors.  The  Son  of  God  was  begotten  from  eternity , 
is  unintelligible  taken  absolutely ;  but  it  is  intelligible  con 
sidered  as  denying  that  any  time  can  be  assigned  when  he 
began  to  exist. 

This  may  be  applied  to  the  argument  for  the  eternity  of 
God — ex  nihilo  nihil  Jit.     How  God  is  eternal,  cannot  be  un-  96 
derstood ;   yet  this  proves  that  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  he  had 
a  beginning. 

5.  When  propositions  are  so  unintelligible  that  they  neither 
affirm  nor  deny  any  thing,  a  man,  by  repeating  them,  whatever 
other  folly  he  may  run  into,  cannot  be  guilty  of  any  breach  of 
veracity ;  he  can  deceive  no  one :  unless  indeed  he  professes  to 
understand  them  :  if  he  says  that,  he  introduces  a  new  pro 
position,  and  one  which  is  intelligible.  Not  long  after  the 
middle  of  the  last  century,  the  clergy  in  France  were  obliged 
to  sign  a  form  to  this  purpose :  '  I  heartily  condemn  the  five 
propositions  contained  in  Jansenius**  book :  his  doctrine, 
though  pretended  to  be  taken  from  Augustin,  is  not  really 
AugustiiTs.''  Now  it  did  not  appear  that  the  five  propositions 
were  in  Jansenius^s  book  (called  Augustinus)  ;  that  was  ques 
tioned,  and  the  passages  never  found.  This  form  the  nuns  of 
St.  Cyran,  whose  convent  was  at  Port  Royal  in  the  fields, 
were  called  upon  to  sign,  they  being  great  favourers  of  the 
Jansenists.  We  sign  this  ?  say  they ;  how  should  we  know 
whether  the  propositions  are  really  in  the  book  or  not  ?  it  is  a 
great  folio  written  in  Latin,  and  we  do  not  understand  Latin : 
we  will  not  assent  to  what  we  do  not  at  all  understand  !  They 
persisted  in  their  refusal  till,  at  last,  their  monastery  was 
wholly  destroyed1.  Voltaire's  remark  is,  '  one  does  not  know 
which  is  more  singular,  the  confession  which  was  required 
of  women  that  five  propositions  were  contained  in  a  Latin 
book,  or  the  obstinate  refusal  of  these  nuns.'  The  requisition 

1  3Iosheim,    17th  Cent.  2.  1.  1.  47.     Voltaire—Louis   XIV.    Jansenisme,  pp. 
271—281,  12mo. 


III.  X.  6',  7.]        UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.  405 

II.  was  certainly  very  strange:  Voltaire  did  not  think  the  refusal 
less  so.      The  form  was  unintelligible,  but  it  was  known  by  all 

97  men  to  be  so.    Veracity  was  not  concerned  with  assenting  to  it: 
such  assenting  would  have  deceived  no  one2. 

6.  If  the  end  of  assenting  to  unintelligible  propositions  is 
not  truth,  what  is  it  ?  it  can  only  be  some  species  of  conve 
nience,   or  utility ;   that  is,  avoiding   some   evil,  or  attaining 
some  good.     To  impose  assent  to  them  without  some  such  view, 
would  be  foolish  and  oppressive  ;   nay.  considering  them  as  of  a 
religious  sort,  impious  or  presumptuous. 

7.  The  principal  question  is,  wherein  can  that  utility  con 
sist?  what  is  the  nature  of  the  evil  to  be  avoided,   and  of  the 
good  to  be  attained  ?     It  is  an  evil  to  neglect  or  throw  aside 
any  thing  which  it  has  pleased  God  to  reveal  to  mankind.      If 
he  sends  a  message,  whether  it  be  understood  or  not,  it  is  to  be 
carefully  preserved ;   it  is  to  be  noted  and  registered  faithfully 
and  simply  ;  nay,  the  more  exactly,  for  not  being  understood. 
If  we  write  what  we   understand,   we  may  safely  alter  several 
little  points  and  dots  ;    we  know  what  we  are  doing ;   but  if  we 
copy  a  language  which  we  have  never  learnt,   we  must  copy 
every  thing,  even  blots  and  mistakes.    All  that  we  can  strictly 
say,  in  such  a  case,  is,  that  we  do  not  at  present  understand 
what  God  is  pleased  to  say  to  us ;   we  do  not  know  how  soon 
we  may.     It  may  be  objected  here,   keep  the  scriptural  infor 
mation  faithfully,   only  do  not  require  assent  to  it :  but  it  is 
not  conceivable  that  we  should  value  Scripture,   and  not  throw 
the  expressions  of  it  into  some  forms — of  doctrine,  or  devo 
tion — into  sermons,  prayers,  hymns,  &c.      These  are  necessary, 

98  if  we  were  only  to  remind  men  of  what  has  been  revealed  ;   and 
to  make  them  feel  its  value  and  importance  :   these  must  be  the 
ordinary  means  of  exciting  religious  sentiments.      Care   must 
indeed  be  taken,  at  the  same  time,  that  no  one  deceives  himself, 
or  imagines  that  he  understands  what  he  really  does  not. 

If  we  throw  away  what  comes  from  above,  because  we  do 
not  thoroughly  see  the  meaning  of  it,  we  know  not  what  we 
lose.  Suppose  a  people,  who  were  pretty  much  uncivilised, 
had  an  offer  of  a  good  body  of  laws,  and  accepted  them. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  there  would  be  several  regulations  of 

2  Had  they  signed,  they  would  have   \    difficulty  ?    Suppose  they  had  signed,  and 
thought,  probably,  their  assent  equiva-       said  publicly,  '  we  do  not  condemn  Jan- 


lent  to  saying,  'we  Jansenists  condemn 
Jansenius ;'  but  need  they  have  had  this 


senius  ?' — or  some  other  contrivance  of 
that  sort  might  have  been  hit  upon. 


406 


UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.  [III.  X.  7. 


which  they  would  not  see  the  scope;  but  would  they  therefore  II. 
be  wise  for  expunging  those  regulations  ?  Contests  might 
arise  from  prejudices  against  such  new  laws,  which  might 
occasion  some  kind  of  assent  to  be  given  to  the  superior  wisdom 
of  the  new  laws  :  it  would  scarcely  be  a  sufficient  objection  to 
giving  such  assent,  to  say  that  some  of  the  new  laws  were  un 
intelligible.  Who  indeed  amongst  the  ordinary  people  (I  do 
not  mean  the  ignorant  multitude)  understands  law-deeds^  when 
he  signs  them,  even  in  the  most  important  concerns  ?  To 
throw  aside  the  notices  from  heaven,  because  we  did  not  under 
stand  them,  would  be  to  act  like  savages,  who  threw  gold  and 
jewels  into  the  sea.  And  we  must  throw  such  notices  aside,  if 
we  never  insert  any  of  them  into  our  forms.  And  it  is  the 
same  thing  if,  in  order  to  avoid  difficulty,  we  lower  the  things 
revealed  to  what  we  fancy  is  common  sense.  Sometimes,  one 
set  of  men  are  compelled  to  use  unintelligible  forms,  by  other 
men's  perverting  or  lowering  Scripture.  If,  by  such  a  measure, 
we  can  prevent  such  perversion,  the  evil  which  we  incur  must 
be  less  than  that  which  we  avoid.  And  the  same  if  we  prevent 
dissension. 

I  think  we  may  safely  say,  of  the  nuns  of  St.  Cyran  just  99 
now  mentioned,  that  the  evil  of  their  refusing  to  assent  to  an 
unintelligible  proposition  was,  in  fact,  much  greater  than  that 
of  their  assenting  would  have  been  ;  even  if  we  allow  that  they 
were  to  be  commended  for  conscientiously  adhering  to  what 
they  thought  right. 

But  the  utility  of  assenting  to  unintelligible  propositions 
may  consist  in  attaining  positive  good,  as  well  as  in  avoiding 
evil.  There  is  no  greater  good  to  human  kind  than  that 
which  might  arise  from  a  religious  society  well  conducted, 
which  should  include  the  young  and  the  old,  the  wise  and  the 
unthinking.  Now,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  such  a  society 
could  be  carried  on  without  some  members  assenting  to  what 
they  did  not  understand  ;  for  what  would  be  intelligible  to 
some  would  be  unintelligible  to  others;  and  yet  there  must  be 
an  uniformity;  all  ranks  must  join  in  creeds,  catechisms,  and 
liturgies1.  On  this  uniformity  depends  that  ease  and  com 
posure  which  is  so  necessary  to  encourage  religious  sentiments, 
and  to  heighten  devout  sympathy.  And,  (we  might  add,)  as 


1  It  might  be  here  recollected  that 
the  Copts  in  Egypt  have  divine  service 
in  a  language  they  do  not  understand. 


liook  I.  chap.  ix.  of  this,  from  Pococke's 
Travels. 


III.  X.  8,9.]       UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.  407 

II.  it  will  frequently  happen,  that  forms  of  words,  confessions, 
&c.  continue  a  long  time  after  they  have  been  found  faulty 
or  unnecessary,  on  this  account  verbal  affirmations  must  be 
made,  after  the  meaning  of  the  words  made  use  of  is  evapo 
rated. 

8.  It  will  add  force  to  this  reasoning,  if  we  consider,   that 
a  person  who  did  assent  to  unintelligible  propositions  for  the 
reasons  we  offer,   could  not  be  said  to  lie  "  unto  God~"  or  to 
injure  man.      To  allow  this,  we  need  only  conceive  such  a  per- 

100  son  to  enter  into  a  solemn  meditation,   as  in  the  sight  of  God ; 
and  to  say,  4  I  have  given  my  verbal  assent  to  what  I  did  not 
understand;    but   I  have  done  this  with  a  good  intention:   I 
have   done  it  in  order  to  avoid  religious  evil,   and   to   attain 
religious  good.     I  have  used  no  words  of  my  own  choosing, 
but  only  such  words  as  have  been  appointed  for  me  by  those  in 
authority.     I  have  pretended  to  know  nothing  more  than  I  really 
did  know  :     every   one    who  was   concerned  was  aware  of  my 
ignorance.     Perhaps,  in  time,  that  ignorance  may  receive  some 
information :    perhaps  several  of  those  with  whom  I  am,  for  the 
best  purposes,   united  in  society,  may  already  see  more  than   I 
do.      My   conscience    tells    me,    that,    whilst   I   act  with  such 
sincerity,  the  omniscient  Being  will  not  be  offended  with  my 
conduct.1 

As  to  man,  there  seems  no  foundation  for  his  taking  of 
fence.  He  receives  no  harm:  he  is  neither  injured  nor  de 
ceived. 

9.  It  will  confirm  and  illustrate  what  has  been  said,  if  we 
consider  the  manner  in  which  God  has  acted  with  mankind  in 
the  revelation  of  his  will.     Ever  since  the  creation  of  the  world, 
he  has  been  revealing  it  gradually ;  at  all  times  giving  intima 
tions  of  the  whole  of  his  plan ;   but  those  intimations  were  at 
first  very  faint  and  obscure,   afterwards  by  degrees  more  and 
more  clear.      This  being  the  case,  different  things,   at  different 
times,   must  have  been  unintelligible,   or  must  have  been  mys 
terious ;   for  the  true  scriptural  notion  of  3 (jLvcm]ptov  is,   a  de 
sign  of  God  not  yet  executed,   or  made  manifest.      Mysteries, 
according  to  this  notion,  may  both  be  "kept  secret1  since  the 
world  began,"  and  be  revealed  or  made  known.      Yet  at    all 
times,    what  was  known,    though   not   clearly   comprehended, 

101  might  be  generally  professed;   and,   if  that    be  true,  then  at 
all  times  unintelligible  propositions  would  be  professed  by  some 

-  Acts  v.  4.  3  Locke  on  1  Cor.  i.  1,  7-  4  Rom.  xvi.  25.    Eph.  iii.  4. 


408  UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.     [III.  X.  10,  11. 

persons,    though   what  was   once  so  would  gradually  lose  its  II. 
nature. 

To  confirm  the  notion,  that  parts  of  Scripture  should  not 
be  thrown  aside,  because  they  are  not  intelligible,  I  will  men 
tion  EusebiusV  account  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  with  re 
gard  to  the  Book  of  Revelation:  and  I  will  make  use  of 
Lardner's  translation.  "  Some  who  were  before  us  have 
utterly  rejected  and  confuted  this  book,  criticising  every  chap 
ter  [or  paragraph],  shewing  it  to  be  throughout  unintelligible 
and  inconsistent;"  "But,  for  my  part,  I  dare  not  reject  the 
book,  since  many  of  the  brethren  have  it  in  high  esteem  :  but, 
allowing  it  to  be  above  my  understanding,  I  suppose  it  to  con 
tain  throughout  some  latent  and  wonderful  meaning :  for, 
though  I  do  not  understand  it,  I  suspect  there  must  be  some 
profound  sense  in  the  words;  not  measuring  and  judging  these 
things  by  my  own  reason,  but  ascribing  more  to  faith,  I  esteem 
them  too  sublime  to  be  comprehended  by  me."  As  Dionysius 
reasons  on  the  mysteries  of  the  Apocalypse,  we  might  reason 
on  any  other  mysteries.  It  is  highly  probable  he  would  not 
have  been  averse  to  throwing  expressions  of  the  Apocalypse,  or 
even  others  equivalent  to  them,  into  forms,  to  be  used  or 
assented  to,  when  any  good  seemed  likely  to  arise  from  such  a 
measure. 

10.  What  has  been  said  concerning  the  gradual  opening  of 
Revelation  to  mankind,  is  in  a  good  measure  applicable  to  the 
gradual  increase  of  knowledge  in  each  human  being,  in  any 
given  state  of  general  improvement.     Each  man  has  continually 
something  unintelligible  immediately  before   him,  though   the 
number  of  those  things  which  he  understands  is  continually  in 
creasing.      And  when  lie  mixes  with  other  men,  he  finds  others  10? 
comprehending  what  is  unintelligible  to  him  ;   insomuch  that,  if 

he  acts  with  them,  he  must  admit  propositions  (for  all  motives 
and  principles  seem  resolvable  into  propositions)  which  he  does 
not  comprehend ;  and  have  frequent  occasion  to  assent  to  their 
truth.  Nay,  I  can  fancy,  that  all  conclusions  of  his  expe 
rience,  after  which  he  constantly  acts,  concerning  substances, 
laws  of  nature,  &c.  if  formed  into  propositions,  would  appear,  as 
propositions,  to  be  unintelligible. 

11.  There  is  nothing,  perhaps,  which  will  make  our  reason 
ing  more  readily  accepted  than  conceiving  a  child  to  repeat  his 
catechism.      At  first,  the  whole  is  unintelligible  to  him,  and 

1  See  Euscb.  Hist,,  or  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  pp.  104,  105. 


III.  X.  12,  1.3.]     UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.  409 

II.  always  some  part;  yet  it  is  right,  upon  the  whole,  that  he 
should  repeat  it.  The  very  sound  of  the  words,  of  which  he 
hears  some  account  at  other  times,  makes  some  impression  upon 
him  ;  and  there  is  scarce  a  part  which  is  not  the  vehicle  of 
some  good  sentiment.  Sentiments  of  order;  decency,  duty,  are 
inculcated,  as  well  as  those  more  immediately  religious.  But, 
as  catechizing  has  been  practised  in  all  ages  of  the  Christian 
world,  the  benefits  of  it  must  have  been  experienced,  and  the 
wisdom  of  it  may  be  taken  for  granted;  and,  as  it  deceives  no 
one,  the  innocence  of  it  is  evident  —  I  mean,  as  being  clear  of 
any  violation  of  veracity. 

12.  It  may  be  proper   not  wholly  to  omit  all  mention  of 
different  orders  in  the  Church.     Of  old,   the  lowest  were  the 
KaTrj^ov/mevot,  the  next  the  TTicrro),  the  highest  the  r)yovp.evot — 
the  catechumens,  the  faithful,  and  the  leaders.     We  have  just 
now  spoken  of  catechumens;  only  we  must  conceive,  that,  when 
men  of  maturity  embraced  Christianity  from  conviction,  they 
were  better  acquainted,   even  while  catechumens,  with  its  prin- 

103  ciples  than  children  are:  nevertheless,  a  plain  man  is  only  a 
degree  higher ;  very  few  common  men  would  explain  our  cate 
chism  well.  The  catechumens  would  have  the  greatest  number 
of  unintelligible  doctrines  to  profess;  the  faithful  more  than  the 
leaders  ;  but  all  would  have  some.  Even  the  teacher  cannot  be 
exempt:  in  many  things  he  is,  and  must  be,  as  those  that  are 
taught ;  and  the  different  ranks  of  teachers  must  differ,  as  the 
different  ranks  do  of  those  whom  they  instruct. 

13.  It  may  be  asked,  whether  some  propositions  are  not 
partially  unintelligible  ?    I  should  be  inclined  to  say,  some  are. 
The    prophecy,    that    the   seed   of  woman    should  bruise  the 
"'serpent's  head,  may  be  reckoned  of  this   sort.      It  seems  to 
mean  something ;  some  privilege  to  man  ;  but  what  privilege  it 
is  could  not  be  understood — at  least  for  some  thousands  of 
years.      It  is  intelligible  to  say,  that  no  time  can  be  assigned 
when  God  was  ignorant  what  you  would  choose  ;   yet,  when  it 
is  added,  you  might  have  chosen  otherwise  than  you  did,  the 
moment  before  you  fixed  your  choice,  this,  being  equally  in 
telligible,  throws  an  obscurity  over  the  whole.      If  propositions 
are    taken    as   partly  unintelligible,    the   natural   consequence 
seems  to  be,  that  they  must  partake  of  the  nature  of  those 
which  are  wholly  so.      The  less  distinct  ideas  we  have  to  any 
proposition,  the  less  difference  will  there  be  between  the  affirm- 

3  Gen.  iii.  15. 


410 


UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS,  [III.  X.  14. 


ative  and  negative  side  of  it — the  less  opposition  or  contradic-  II. 
tion  ;   consequently,  assent  to  it   means  less ;   and  losing  the 
good  of  social  religion,  or  incurring  any  evil,  on  its  account,  is 
less  excusable1. 

14.  Since  I  first  formed  the  reasoning  in  this  chapter,  I  104 
have  been  alarmed  by  a  passage  in  a  Charge  of  Dr.  BalguyX 
delivered  to  the  Clergy  of  his  Archdeaconry  in  1769,  and  pub 
lished  in  1785;  in  which  there  seem  to  be  some  things  contra 
dictory  to  what  I  have  advanced.  As  I  distrust  my  own  con 
clusions  more  than  his,  if,  upon  consideration,  you  do  not  judge 
that  they  are  reconcilable,  I  must  exhort  you  to  confide  in  him 
rather  than  in  me. 

When  the  views  of  writers  are  very  different,  they  may  say 
things  which  seem  to  contradict  each  other,  though  they  really 
do  not.  This  great  man  speaks  to  the  enlightened  about  the 
most  perfect  principles  of  reasoning  in  the  mind  :  I  take  the 
ordinary  course  of  things ;  suppose  mere  common  men  to  have 
authority ;  and  refer  all  to  social  action.  One  great  end  we 
have  in  common — to  hinder  men  from  fancying  they  understand 
what  they  really  do  not.  This  end  he  pursues  as  a  preventive 
of  error — I,  lest  men  should  suffer  needless  uneasiness,  when 
they  assent  to  what  they  do  not  understand,  or  be  afraid  to  en 
ter  the  ministry ;  in  short,  lest  they  should  be  too  backward, 
as  well  as  too  forward,  to  make  use  of  reasonable  liberty. 

This  difference  of  views  affords  hope  of  reconciliation. 
Let  us  read  the  passage2.  A  proposition  not  understood  can 
not  be  believed,  or  be  an  object  of  faith.  In  strictness  it  can 
not  ;  yet  we  may  believe  that  it  may  be  valuable ,-  that  it  may 
have  a  meaning,  though  we  do  not  see  it;  (this  indeed  Dr. 
Balguy  allqws3;)  and  this  must  incline  us  to  retain  unintelli 
gible  propositions,  and  even  use  them  in  some  way,  before  we 
come  to  understand  them. 

Dr.  Balguy  instances  in  transubstantiation.  That  instance 
seems  too  remote  from  scriptural  expressions  to  rank  with  105 
mine;  yet  I  would  not  condemn  a  Romanist  who,  as  one  of 
the  people,  gave  a  verbal  assent  to  it,  merely  in  submission  to 
authority,  if  he  did  not  pretend  to  understand  it.  I  hope  the 
remarks  of  us  both  tend  to  hinder  mysterious  doctrines  from 
perplexing  weak  minds,  and  bringing  contempt  upon  religion. 

Dr.   Balguy  says,  that  what  is  even  owned  to  come  from 


1  Fait-on  mourir  des  gens  pour  avoir 
dit  que  Jesus  est  un  verbe  ?    Voltaire, 


4to.  vol.  xxvi.  p.  129. 

-  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  234.    3  Dr.  B.  p.  238. 


III.  X.  14.]  UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS. 


411 


II.  God  must  be  understood  before  we  can  believe  it.  In  strict 
ness  this  is  true.  Yet,  without  understanding  it,  we  may  re 
spect  it,  bring  it  into  notice,  keep  it  unadulterated,  even  write 
or  repeat  it,  if  our  governors  think  fit,  amongst  things  to  which 
we  give  our  assent4. 

What  is  the  most  difficult  to  reconcile  with  my  account  is, 
that  Dr.  Balguy  knows  no  medium  between  understanding  per 
fectly,  and  not  understanding  at  all.  I  cannot  see  how  this  is 
wrong ;  yet  I  think  there  are  propositions  which  seem  to  be 
partially  unintelligible,  and  which,  in  fact,  will  be  treated  by 
men  as  such :  if  so,  provision  should  be  made  for  them,  as  if 
they  really  were  such.  Obscure  propositions  may  possibly  be 
made  clear  by  rightly  stating  what  they  really  mean,  but  then 
it  requires  very  great  clearness  and  acuteness  to  do  this. 
"Christ  is  the  author  of  eternal  salvation,"  would  commonly 
seem  obscure,  or  partially  unintelligible;  though  Dr.  Balguy 
makes  it  seem  intelligible,  by  clearing  it  of  all  extraneous  mat 
ter  ;  but  a  common  man  could  not  have  done  this.  We  our 
selves  have  seen  how  a  proposition  which  is,  when  taken  abso 
lutely,  unintelligible,  may  be  intelligible  taken  relatively.  "  In 
106  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  "Christ  is  the  Son  of  God." 
"Whom  God  of  old  ordained  to  this  condemnation."  Perhaps 
each  of  these  propositions  might  be  exhibited  in  a  form  perfect 
ly  intelligible ;  (sometimes,  taking  a  negative  form  will  give 
distinctness ;)  but,  as  this  is  very  difficult,  it  seems  right,  with 
a  view  to  practice,  to  determine  how  propositions  partly  intel 
ligible  should  be  treated. 

Notwithstanding  this,  it  does  seem  useful  that  men  should 
be  aware  how  one  word  may  render  a  whole  sentence  unintelli 
gible,  and  lead  to  falsehood. 

There  is  no  difference  between  Dr.  Balguy's  explanation 
and  mine,  with  regard  to  the  sense  of  p  wr  rijpior ;  but,  though 
.  mystery  does  not  always  imply  present  ignorance,  yet  what  is 
now  past  ignorance  was  once  present ;  and  present  ignorance 
may  be  enlightened.  In  a  state  of  ignorance,  at  any  time,  in 
timations  of  future  knowledge  might  be  couched  in  propositions 
not  wholly  to  be  understood. 

Dr.  Balguy  says,  "no  advantage  can  arise  from  the  use  of 
words  without  ideas."  Here,  our  different  views  may  occasion 


4  Dr.  B.  says,  that  ordinary  men  must 
take  their  opinions  from  others.  (See 
p.  255,  Charge  V.)  Parents,  teachers, 


&c.  must  "determine  for  them  what  they 
are  to  believe,"  &c.  See  also  Disc.  vii. 
p.  124. 


412  UNINTELLIGIBLE    PROPOSITIONS.  [III.  X,  15. 

the  seeming  contradiction  :  in  reasoning,  none ;  in  practice,  it  II. 
seems   as   if  there  might  be   some — as,  for  instance,  in   cate 
chizing.      In  Dr.   Powell's  Sermons1,  published  (and  probably 
selected)  by  Dr.  Balguy,  there  is  mention  of  a  child's  repeating 
his  creed,  and  no  mark  of  disapprobation. 

In  the  particular  case  in  which  St.  Paul  forbids  speaking  in 
an  unknown  tongue,  it  would  have  done  great  harm :  it  would 
have  defeated  the  ends  of  religious  society.  We  recommend  the 
not  rejecting  of  unintelligible  propositions,  upon  the  ground 
that  they  may  promote  the  ends  of  religious  society. 

On   the  whole,  I   do  sincerely  hope,  that,  notwithstanding 
the  seeming  opposition  between  Dr.  Balguy's  Charge  and  my   107 
Lectures,  there  is  not  any  real  one.      If  one  could  have  his  re 
marks  upon  what  I  say  here,  I  doubt  not  but  they  would  be 
very  improving. 

15.  I  will  conclude  this  chapter  with  a  few  practical  in 
ferences  from  what  has  been  laid  down  in  it.  They  may  be 
useful,  both  as  practical  directions,  and  as  proofs  of  the  justness 
of  our  reasoning. 

1.  Any  church  may  reasonably  admit  some  unintelligible 
propositions  into  its  forms :  that  some  are  found  there,  is  no 
proof  that  such  church  is  erroneous. 

2.  It  is  most  immediately  to  our  present  purpose  to  ob 
serve,  that  though,  in  assenting,  unintelligible  propositions  are 
wont  to  give  us  the  most  care  and  uneasiness,  they  ought  to 
give  us  the  least. 

3.  In  settling  principles  of  action  in  our  minds,  we  ought 
to  be  very  cautious  lest  we  take  for  granted  that  we  understand 
what  in  reality  we  do  not.      We  should  be  aware,  that  most 
propositions  relating  to  religion,  if  we  include  all  particulars  in 
them  which  can  be  included,  contain  something  which  is  above 
our  comprehension. 

4.  Lastly.     When  we  are  obliged  to   engage  in  contro 
versy,  we  should  never  indulge  any  malevolence,  or  any  intem 
perate  zeal,  particularly  about  mysterious  doctrines.     We  are 
most  apt  to  fall  into  disputes  about  those  subjects  which  we  un 
derstand  the  least.      We  do  not  know  enough  of  the  mysterious 
doctrines  of  religion  to  quarrel  about  them.      Were  we  to  see 
two  children  fighting  about  their  creeds,  we  should  think  them 
too  ignorant  to  be  champions  of  orthodoxy  ;  but  they  seem  al 
most  as  well  qualified  to  be  so  as  we  are  to  contend,  with  vio- 

1  Pp.  40, 41. 


III.  X.  15.]  UNINTELLIGIBLE     PROPOSITIONS.  413 

II.  lence,  about  the  eternal  generation  of  Christ,  when  opposed  to 
108  his  creation  before2  all  worlds.  It  may  be  said,  though  both 
these  doctrines  are  mysterious,  yet  one  may  be  nearer  to  the 
truth  than  the  other: — if  you  are  at  the  top  of  a  steeple  and  I 
at  the  bottom,  it  is  never  worth  our  while  to  quarrel  about 
which  is  nearer  to  the  sun. 

The  truth  is,  that  in  the  eyes  of  superior  beings,  we  are 
none  of  us  right ;  and  that  a  superior  being  would  have  diffi 
culty  in  pronouncing  which  of  us  is  nearest  to  being  right — I 
mean,  in  mysterious  doctrines.  In  ceremonies,  and  other  things 
of  an  arbitrary  nature,  (the  other  thing  we  quarrel  about),  we 
are  all  right,  so  long  as  we  do  not  dispute.  I  should  wish  to 
mention  here  the  story  of  three  ladies  who  were  reading  about 
Cupid  and  Psyche.  One  called  Psyche,  Ji-sk  (physch)  ;  the 
second  reprimanded  her,  and  called  it  fish  (physch)  ;  the  third 
snatched  the  book,  and  insisted  on  the  word's  being  called  skew 
(pschew).  The  dispute  ran  high ;  at  last,  an  agreement  was 
made  to  refer  it  to  a  gentleman  of  the  University,  (for  in  the 
midst  of  an  University  the  dispute  is  said  to  have  happened)  : 
the  academic  arrived  :  which  is  right  ?  why  I  cannot  say  any 
one  is  right ;  which  is  nearest  right  ?  that  is  a  point  too  diffi 
cult  to  be  determined.  Now,  suppose  each  of  these  ladies  to 
have  a  number  of  followers  in  her  pronunciation,  and  we  have 
three  sects.  What  might  be  the  event  of  a  violent  controversy 
between  such  sects,  it  is  impossible  distinctly  to  foresee.  They 
might  want  Dr.  Balguy's  advice,  "least  of  all  to  censure  and 
persecute  our  brethren,  perhaps  for  no  better  reason  than  be 
cause  their  nonsense  and  ours  wears  a  different  dress3." 

Finally,  if  it  should  ever  be  our  fate  to  be  engaged  in  con 
troversy  on  incomprehensible  doctrines,  let  us  "read,  mark, 
10</  learn,"  that  beautiful  passage  of  Augustin,  about  his  own  con 
troversy  with  the  Manicheans: — "Illud,  quovis4  judice,  impe- 
trare  me  a  vobis  oportet,  ut  in  utraque  parte  omnis  arrogantia 
deponatur.  Nemo  nostrum  dicat  se  jam  invenisse  veritatem. 
Sic  earn  quaeramus  quasi  ab  utrisque  nesciatur.  Ita  enim  dili- 
genter  et  concorditer  qua?ri  poterit,  si  nulla  temeraria  pra3sum- 
tione  inventa  et  cogriita  esse  credatur." 

Thus  may  we  speak  the  truth  in  5love;  search  for  it  as 
friends  and  brethren  ;  and,  at  length,  come  to  hold  it  in  the 
unity  of  spirit  and  bond  of  peace. 

2  See  Arius's  Letter  in  Epiphan.  Her.  |  4  See  the  end  of  Lardner's  Account  of 
09.  (/  and  8).  See  also  Pearson  on  the  j  the  Manicheans,  from  Aug.  contra  Ep. 
Creed.  "  P.  192.  Fund.  Cap.  !*.  n.  •?,  I!,  4.  ••  Eph.  iv.  1 5. 


414  CHOOSING    THE    LEAST    EVIL.  [III.  xi.  1. 

II. 

CHAPTER    XI.  110 

OF     CHOOSING    THE     LEAST    EVIL. 

1.  WE  have  been  treating  of  using  and  assenting  to  forms  : 
and  we  have  been  examining  into  those  liberties  which  arise 
from  changes  in  the  meaning  and  force  of  such  forms ;  either 
by  tacit  improvements  in  the  religion  to  which  they  belong,  or 
by  the  decay  or  extinction  of  the  heresies  which  they  are  adapt 
ed  to  correct.  We  have  also  considered  other  liberties,  which 
arise  from  the  imperfection  and  indistinctness  of  our  conceptions. 
These  liberties  may  all  together  seem  to  be  numerous  ;  but  yet, 
in  practice,  more  may  be  wanted.  After  they  have  been  all 
used,  there  may  be  some  things  in  the  religious  society  to  which 
we  belong  that  we  cannot  approve — something  that  we  wish  to 
have  changed.  Even  a  considerable  number  of  the  members 
may  wish  for  change ;  or  the  governing  part  may  be  satisfied, 
and  lower  orders  dissatisfied ;  in  such  dissatisfaction  what  is  to 
be  done  ?  The  most  obvious  thing  to  suggest  is,  choose  ano 
ther  church  :  but,  it  does  not  follow,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that 
a  person  who  desires  to  have  some  things  changed  must  neces 
sarily  quit  his  religious  society ;  and,  if  he  does  not  quit  it,  he 
must  continue  under  obligation  to  do  every  thing  as  a  regular 
member ;  amongst  other  things,  he  must  assent  to  use  forms, 
when  that  is  required  of  him  by  authority,  either  as  a  private 
man  or  a  minister. 

Whether  he  must  quit  his  society  or  not,  must  depend  on 
this  principle;  he  must  choose  the  least  evil: — of  which  princi-  HI 
pie,  more  hereafter.  Now  we  only  say,  if,  on  the  whole,  it  is 
the  least  evil  for  him  to  quit,  he  must  do  so ;  if,  to  continue,  he 
must  continue;  whatever  difficulties  he  may  have  about  assent 
ing  in  form  to  doctrine,  which  does  not  coincide  with  his  pri 
vate  opinion.  I  say,  assenting  inform,  because,  when  he  has 
his  choice  of  words,  he  must  declare  his  private  opinion  plainly, 
and  say  what  his  real  meaning  is,  in  using  expressions  inconsis 
tent  with  his  private  opinion  ;  namely,  to  comply  with  rules  of 
a  society,  of  which  he  thinks  it  his  duty  to  continue  a  member. 
He  must  declare  that  he  speaks  as  he  would  act  in  any  office, 
without  interposing  his  private  judgment:  as  an  herald  would 
perform  ceremonies,  which  he  thought  had  better  be  altered  or 
omitted,  or  would  proclaim  unmeaning  titles  of  a  king. 


III.  XI*.  2 4.]        CHOOSING    THE    LEAST    EVIL.  415 

II.  2.  But,  how  are  evils  to  be  calculated,  so  that  he  may 
know  whether  his  retiring  or  his  continuing  will  be  attended 
with  greater  ?  I  apprehend  this  should  be  done  by  the  prin 
ciples  already  laid  down  in  the  present  book,  and  by  consider 
ations  of  public  and  private  utility — to  mankind  in  general, 
and  to  religious  society  in  particular.  Schism  is  the  term 
commonly  made  use  of  to  express  needless  division  of  the  whole 
society  of  Christians,  or  needless  separation  from  any  church1 ; 
and  the  evil  of  it  is  extensive.  It  consists  in  interrupting  uni 
formity,  making  Christians  consider  each  other  as  enemies,  or 
rivals,  unhinging  men's  principles,  lessening  the  number  of  those 
who  assist  each  others  religious  sentiments  by  sympathy; — 
taking  attention  from  practice  to  speculation.  To  these  should 
be  added,  harm  to  civil  government,  and  detriment  done  to  the 
principles  of  the  individual  himself  who  separates. 
112  3.  However  just  this  may  be,  and  however  plain  it  is  that 

all  men  must  choose  the  least  evil,  yet  many  seem  as  if  they 
would  not  allow  it  without  some  reluctance  in  matters  of  reli 
gion.  It  does  indeed,  when  assenting  in  form  to  things  which 
do  not  satisfy  us,  as  a  consequence,  wear  the  appearance  of  pre 
varication  ;  and  men  are  much  to  be  commended  who  examine 
all  such  appearances  with  the  greatest  nicety. 

But  the  chief  thing  which  would  obstruct  the  reception  of 
our  maxim,  choose  the  least  evil,  is,  that  it  implies  great  im 
perfection  in  religious  societies.  It  implies,  that  a  man  may 
find  imperfection  in  his  own  church  ;  and,  if  he  attempts  to 
quit  it  on  that  account,  he  may  find  that  other  churches  are 
still  more  imperfect  than  his  own  :  whereas,  we  are  habituated 
to  look  up  to  our  church  with  the  utmost  veneration.  We  are 
brought  up  to  hear  nothing  but  good  of  the  religion  to  which 
we  belong.  Its  doctrines,  its  regulations,  nay,  its  ceremonies 
and  habits,  are  recommended  to  us,  and  strongly  inculcated, 
without  any  distinction  being  made  between  them  and  religion 
in  the  strictest  sense — between  them  and  that  which  is  most 
substantial,  essential,  indispensable.  And  this  is  found  neces 
sary  for  maintaining  religious  sentiments  in  the  minds  of  the 
generality  of  people.  Such  commendations  may  sometimes  make 
us  have  more  respect  for  religion  ;  but  they  may  also  give  us 
some  wrong  notions  and  prejudices,  and  prevent  our  doing 
what  is  best  upon  the  whole. 

4.    And  some  men  increase   this   veneration   for  religious 
1  Just  mentioned  chap.  iv.  sect  4.  /nrj  ?)  Jy  ifjiiv  o-xtV^ara.    1  Cor.  i.  10. 


416  CHOOSING    THE    LEAST    EVIL.  [III.  xi.  4. 

society  in  general,  by  considering,  that  the  Catholic  Church,  II. 
or  society  of  Christians,  was  founded  by  Christ  himself.    From 
whence  also  this  conclusion  may  seem  deducible,  that,  if  any 
particular  church  has  any  material  imperfection,  it  cannot  be  a  113 
part  of  the  Church  of  Christ.     Let  us  then  inquire,  first,  how 
far  Christian  churches  are  of  human  institution ;  and  then  we 
can  more  freely  speak  of  their  imperfections. 

That  Christ  might  be  said  to  form  his  disciples  into  a 
church,  has  been  mentioned  in  the  first1  Book;  but,  if  a  great 
number  of  Christians  were  to  assemble,  and  set  themselves  to 
reduce  into  a  practical  form  all  that  he  has  said,  and  act  upon 
it,  they  would  find  themselves  much  at  a  loss,  if  they  added 
nothing.  They  would  be  scarce  able  to  stir  a  step.  The  ob 
struction  would  be  of  the  same  sort,  though  in  a  less  degree,  if 
they  selected  all  passages  relating  to  the  ecclesiastical  govern 
ment  of  the  Apostles.  They  would  find  societies  instituted  and 
conducted,  officers  or  magistrates  named,  their  qualities  men 
tioned  ;  but  all  incidentally,  without  system :  and  they  would 
be  in  danger  of  misinterpreting  ancient  names  or  terms,  by 
affixing  to  them  modern'-  ideas.  Some  have3  thought  that  the 
Apostles  accommodated  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government, 
in  any  place,  to  the  form  of  civil  government  prevailing  there, 
as  falling  in  best  with  habitual  notions.  Without  proving  this, 
we  may  say,  that  no  church  could  be  carried  on  without  more 
rules  than  the  Apostles  have  laid  down ;  and  that  new  rules  or 
laws  ought  to  depend  upon  particular  circumstances.  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  Christ  himself  has  appointed.  Besides 
these,  and  preaching  the  4  Gospel  to  all  men,  requiring  them  to 
act  on  Christian  principles,  and  labouring  to  make  them  "  care 
ful  to  maintain  good  works5,"  nothing  at  this  moment  occurs  to 
me  which  is  so  essential  to  a  Christian  church  as  to  admit  of  no 
variation;  nay  these,  though  invariable  in  themselves,  allow  of  114 
variety  in  the  modes  of  executing  and  encouraging  them.  As 
far  as  these  things  go,  a  person,  in  deliberating  about  a  removal 
from  one  church  to  another,  may  conceive  himself  as  going 
upon  divine  authority :  farther,  all  is  human.  About  the  rest 
then  we  may  reason  freely,  and  compare  one  human  institution 
with  another.  Men  used,  in  former  times,  to  deduce  the  par 
ticulars  of  civil*  society  from  the  Scriptures :  that  is  now  given 

1  Chap.  xix.  sect.  lf».  5  Tit.  iii.  ft. 

2  Bingham,  beginning  of  Book  IX.  6  See  Dr.  Ualguy,  Discourse  VI.  near 

3  Chap.  ix.  sect.  1.       *  Mark  xvi.  .15.       beginning. 


III.  xi.  5,  6.]          CHOOSING    THE    LEAST    EVIL.  417 

II.  up;  but  Scripture  being  about  religion,  a  prejudice  still  re 
mains  for  recurring  to  Scripture  about  ecclesiastical  society. 
This  however  is  not  supported  by  reason,  except  as  far  as  we 
can  reason  by  analogy  from  one  situation  to  another,  according 
to  the  principles  of  Book  I.  chap.  xi.  If  an  architect  was  to 
consult  Scripture  in  order  to  determine  whether  he  should  build 
a  church  of  brick  or  stone,  he  would  not  be  more  unreasonable 
than  some  men  have  been  in  their  consultations. 

5.  As,   then,  we  may  compare  one  human  institution  with 
another,  and  a  church  is,  in  many  respects,  an  human  insti 
tution,  let  us  suppose  a  society  to  meet,  which  had  been  insti 
tuted  for  effecting  an  inland  navigation.     It  is  debated  whether 
certain  sluices  shall  be  made  in  certain  places  ?  You  are  a  mem 
ber,   and  you  have  your  opinion,   grounded  on  reasons  ;   you 
hear,  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  notions,  or  doctrines,  from 
which  you  dissent,  and  these  are  ratified  by  the  majority.     Do 
you  refuse  to  act  after  them,  or  to  continue  a  member  of  this 
society?    A  church  is  a  corporation  or  society  contriving  human 
means  of  answering  a  good  end.     Though  you  disapprove  of 
some  of  the  means  (and  what  are  professions  of  doctrines  but 

115  means?)  you  have  no  more  reason  to  quit  it,  merely  on  that 
account,  than  you  have  to  quit  the  other.  When  an  order  is 
made  by  a  society,  sometimes  persons,  members  of  that  society, 
who  have  voted  against  it,  hesitate  to  sign  it ;  but  this  is  es 
teemed  weakness ;  for  signature  does  not,  in  such  a  case,  imply 
private  opinion. 

6.  If  it  is  once  properly  felt  that  churches  are,   in  most 
things,  human  institutions,  to  consider  their  imperfections  will 
give  no  offence,  and  to  act  upon  them  will  occasion  no   diffi 
culty.      Nay,   we  may  go  one  step  farther  :   human  means  of 
answering  the  ends  of  religious  society  must  needs  be  more 
imperfect  than  any  human  means,  because  religion  is  the  most 
difficult  of  subjects7.      In  most  cases  we  make  attempts  to  im 
prove  things,  and  gain  a  greater  good  than  we  at  present  pos 
sess.      They  are  but  rude  attempts  in  general.    We  know  so 
little  of  the  internal  nature  of  things,  that  we  are  obliged  to 
grope  our  way  in  the  dark ;  and  take  what  knowledge  we  can 
get  from  experience,  though  that  experience  sometimes  costs  us 
dear.      If  this  be  the  case,  what  can  be  expected  in  our  pur 
suits  of  improvement  in  religion  ?   where  we  know  our  way  so 
little  ?   where  almost  every  thing  is  above  our  comprehension  ? 

7  Balguy,  Charge  V.  p.  238. 

VOL.  I.  27 


418  CHOOSING    THE    LEAST    EVIL.  [III.  xl.  7,  8. 

Those  who  find  it  difficult  to  allow  of  uncertainties  in  religion,  II. 
might  perhaps  assist  themselves  by  imagining  two  contending 
parties  to  refer  their  disputes  to  superior  beings.  They  might 
by  that  means  get  an  idea,  that,  in  all  probability,  superior  be 
ings  would  determine  (according  to  the  ludicrous  story  before 
mentioned)  that  neither  party  was  right;  and  that  which  party 
was  the  nearest  to  being  right,  could  not  very  easily  be  deter 
mined. 

7-  Notwithstanding  our  reasoning  may  be  thought  not  un 
just,  it  may  be  thought  better  omitted.  If  mens  religious  con-  116 
duct  depends  on  their  veneration  for  their  religion,  is  it  not 
imprudent  to  lessen  that  veneration  ?  We  may  answer,  that 
sometimes  it  is  necessary  to  enter  into  the  grounds  of  all  duties ; 
though,  while  we  are  considering  them,  we  have  less  sentiment 
than  accompanies  the  performance  of  them  at  other  times,  when 
every  thing  is  in  its  settled  state.  When  a  servant  is  contract 
ing  with  his  master,  or  negociating  about  quitting  his  service, 
he  does  not  feel  the  sentiments  of  a  servant ;  and  so  in  other 
cases ;  but,  when  things  recover  their  usual  train,  the  senti 
ments  recover  their  usual  strength.  In  the  present  case,  when 
quitting  a  church  is  in  question,  considering  its  imperfections 
is  absolutely  necessary,  in  order  to  prevent  taking  a  greater 
evil  instead  of  a  less ;  and  in  order  to  comfort  those  who  com 
ply  without  a  clear  insight  into  the  grounds  of  their  compliance: 
but,  when  questions  and  doubts  are  at  an  end,  veneration  for 
the  church  regains  its  wonted  strength  and  efficacy.  That  which 
is  fallible  may  be  the  best  we  can  attain  ;  and,  though  the  forms 
of  any  church  should  be  in  some  things  exceptionable,  yet  they 
may  be  exceedingly  edifying  upon  the  whole  ;  nay,  we  can  even 
admire  that  which  our  reason  tells  us  is  in  some  respects  im 
perfect.  '  How  noble,  how  beautiful,1  we  say,  '  is  such  a  thing! 
what  a  pity  that  it  has  such  an  imperfection  P  No  poet  is 
more  admired  than  Shakspeare,  even  by  those  who  think  him 
faulty  in  several  respects. 

8.  It  follows  from  these  considerations,  that  continuing 
members  of  a  church  whose  doctrines  seem  imperfect,  when 
that  appears  to  be  the  least  evil,  cannot  interfere  with  our  duty 
to  God  or  man.  As  far  as  we  can  enter  into  the  views  of  the 
Supreme  Being,  we  must  conceive  that  he  cannot  disapprove  of  117 
our  approaching  as  near  as  we  can  to  promoting  the  general 
good.  In  the  case  supposed,  there  is  an  appearance  of  false 
hood  to  the  eye  of  man,  but  there  can  be  none  to  the  all-seeing 


III.  Xi.  9,  10.]        CHOOSING    THE    LEAST    EVIL.  419 

II.  eye  of  Him  who  judgeth  righteous  judgment1.  To  scruple  and 
decline  choosing  the  least  evil,  on  account  of  such  appearance, 
would  be  running  into  mischief  wilfully. 

Amongst  men,  there  seem  none  who  could  be  offended  with 
our  choosing  the  least  evil,  by  complying  with  some  things 
against  our  private  opinion,  except  the  church  in  which  we 
continue.  To  the  church  all  deceit  might  be  avoided,  by  ex 
planation  of  the  real  state  of  the  case.  And  it  is  not  likely 
that  any  church  would  take  offence  at  such  an  irregularity,  or 
would  wish  to  exclude  any  person  on  its  account.  I  suppose 
the  person  peaceable  in  his  conduct,  and  not  doing  more  to 
unsettle  the  minds  of  other  members  of  the  church  than  is 
necessary.  If  he  was  factious,  oftence  might  be  taken  at  his 
factiousness,  but  that  is  not  what  we  are  speaking  of. 

9.  Nevertheless,  the  liberty  here  allowed  may  undoubtedly 
be  carried  too  far.  Abuse  of  it  would  consist  in  continuing 
members  of  a  church,  when  that  was  the  greater  evil  on  public 
principles,  though  the  less  on  private  and  interested  ones.  In 
early  times  of  Christianity,  all  intercommunity2  of  pagan  and 
Christian  rites  was  utterly  unlawful  to  Christians.  And  I  can 
not  conceive,  that  I  could  conscientiously  continue  in  any 
church  where  either  Baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper  was  wholly3 
omitted.  Calculations  must  be  formed  on  particular  circum 
stances  in  each  case. 

118  10.  But,  though  calculations  must  be  formed  chiefly  on 
public  principles,  yet  private  and  temporal  evil  need  not  be 
wholly  neglected  in  them.  Religion  is  intended  to  oppose  the 
things  which  are  not4  seen  to  those  which  are  seen,  when  men 
are  hurried  away  by  unlawful  passions  ;  but,  in  virtuous  pur 
suits,  it  has  the  "promise  of  the  life  that  now  «'s5,"  as  well  as 
"  of  that  which  is  to  come  ;"  and  therefore  may  be  conceived  to 
aim  at  temporal  good,  as  well  as  eternal.  It  is  applauded 
and  protected  by  civil  governments,  because  it  makes  men  just 
and  charitable ;  that  is,  because  it  has  a  good  effect  on  men's 
property  and  present  convenience :  and  whatever  aims  at  pre 
sent  good,  must  be  supposed  to  avoid  present  evil.  If  then 
you  should  inhabit  a  country  where  you  cannot  have  that 
worship  which  to  you  seems  right,  or  if,  having  it  in  some  way, 


John  vii.  :M. 

Warb.  Div.   Leg.   Index.    Powell, 


p.  1HH.  Disc.  xi. 


Instances  will  appear  of  such  under 


Art.  27  and  28.     Quakers  might  be  just 
mentioned  here. 


4    9 


2  Cor.  iv.  155. 
1  Tim.  iv.  8. 


27—2 


420  CHOOSING     THE    LEAST    EVIL.  [III.  xi.  11. 

you  cannot  have  it  in  that  perfection  in  which  you  might  have  II. 
it  where  it  is  established,  it  does  not  seem  necessary  that  you 
should  remove,  and  give  up  your  temporal  prosperity,  or 
sacrifice  the  good  of  a  family,  on  that  account.  The  general 
principles  of  religion  being  the  same  in  most  religions,  if  not  in 
all,  you  may  get  some  good  to  your  sentiments,  affections,  mo 
tives,  if  you  make  the  best  possible  use  of  any  religion.  If 
your  property  and  connections  are  in  Pennsylvania,  or  in  Scot 
land,  or  even  in  a  popish  country,  it  does  not  seem  needful  to 
remove  from  thence  to  that  country  whose  religion  you  most 
approve.  It  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted,  that,  if  you  in 
any  degree  communicate  with  a  church,  you  must  profess  her 
errors,  and  partake  in  her  sinful  practices ;  but  this  is  taken  for 
granted  without  reason.  (See  Archbishop  Sharp,  Sermon  i.) 
There  is  indeed  a  difference  between  attending  any  church  oc-  119 
casionally,  and  being  a  member  of  it ;  but  what  we  have  said 
of  the  former  case  will,  in  some  degree,  apply  to  the  latter. 
For,  wherein  do  churches  chiefly  differ  from  each  other?  Not  in 
those  things  which  we  have  mentioned  as  essentials,  but  in 
things  above  human  comprehension1,  or  in  things  arbitrary; 
such  are  ceremonies,  and  such,  I  conceive,  are  modes  of  govern 
ment.  And  really  a  man  of  an  enlarged  mind  might  bring  him 
self  to  great  compliances,  either  in  one  sort  or  the  other.  Dr. 
Powell  maintains  in  his  Thesis,  with  regard  to  government, 
that  neither  the  English  nor  the  Scotch  form  contains  any 
thing  repugnant  to  either  the  law  of  nature  or  the  Scriptures. 
And  I  should  be  inclined  rather  to  extend  than  to  confine  his 
observation.  Bingham  observes2,  that,  though  French  Pro 
testants  differ  from  English  in  some  respects,  yet  they  hold 
that  the  Church  of  England  is  a  safe  and  rational  Church. 
Now,  whatever  reduces  churches  nearer  to  an  equality,  gives 
temporal  evil  a  greater  weight  in  the  scale,  when  a  person  is 
deliberating  how,  in  quitting  or  adhering  to  a  church,  he  shall 
fix  upon  the  less  evil. 

11.  After  all,  if  you  are  still  haunted  with  scruples  and 
misgivings,  pursue  your  own  course ;  and  see  what  will  be  the 
result.  You  are  discontented  with  something  in  your  own 
church  :  look  out  for  another.  Supposing  you  found  one  per 
fectly  to  your  mind,  yet  even  then  you  ought  not  to  join  it, 
except  the  change  will  compensate  for  the  mischief  of  schism, 

1  Chap.  iv.  sect.  4.  and  chap.  v.  sect.  4.    |  indeed  the  whole  1st  chap,  of  13.  II.  of 

2  End  of  vol.  ii.  also  p.  723,  col.  2;   j  Apology '. 


III.  xi.  11.]  CHOOSING    THE    LEAST    EVIL. 


421 


II  and  for  any  accidental  inconveniences,  such  as  increase  of  dis 
tance,  &c.  But  the  supposition  of  a  church  perfectly  unex- 
120  ceptionable  is  not  to  be  admitted.  Such  perfection  is  so  impro 
bable,  that,  guiding  ourselves  by  experience,  we  must  expect 
that,  if  you  find  any  number  of  errors  or  faults  in  your  own 
church,  you  will  find  some  in  other  churches  ;  perhaps  as 
many  as  in  your  own,  or  more.  You  cannot  be  consistent  in 
that  case,  except  you  quit  them  all.  The  question  then  would 
be,  whether  you  may  quit  all  religious  societies,  and  worship 
God  in  solitude?  We  answer,  every  thing  in  the  nature  of 
the  thing,  every  thing  in  the  expressions  of  Scripture,  is  against 
such  a  measure.  If  you  are  alone,  you  lose  most  of  the 
benefits  of  religion  ;  instruction  and  sympathy  wholly ;  and 
association3  in  a  great  degree.  Even  reading  and  meditation 
grow  either  dead  or  extravagant4.  And  the  pretence  is  trifling. 
Nor  are  you  at  liberty  to  act  upon  it,  except  you  determine 
also  to  retire  from  civil  society,  and  to  fix  yourself  in  some 
desert,  or  on  some  uninhabited  island,  because  in  monarchies 
you  have  found  some  oppression,  in  democracies  some  turbu 
lence,  and  in  every  form  of  civil  government  something  incon 
sistent  with  your  ideas  of  perfection. 

In  short,  the  prejudice,  that  we  are  not  to  choose  the  least 
evil  in  spirituals  as  well  as  in  temporals,  is  without  foundation 
in  reason :  it  is  in  effect  saying  that  we  must  voluntarily  pro 
mote  error  and  misery,  instead  of  truth  and  happiness.  Per 
fection  is  not  to  be  had  ;  but  at  the  same  time  that  we  choose  a 
small  evil  in  some  respects,  we  may  get  great  good  in  others. 
In  conducting  things  in  human  life,  we  continually  use  expe 
dients  in  which  we  see  some  imperfection  ;  because  by  them  we 

121  avoid  some  great  inconvenience,  or  attain  some  considerable 
good.  What  is  hereditary  succession,  especially  in  kings,  but 
an  expedient  of  this  sort  ?  And  as  to  ecclesiastical  matters,  we 
have  already  instanced  in  adopting  tacit  reformations  instead 
of  express  ones,  and  in  using  homilies5  instead  of  sermons, 
when  good  sermons  cannot  be  expected ;  and,  on  the  same 
principle,  we  should  choose  the  religious  society  to  which  we 
will  belong. 

The  conclusion,  which  I  once  made  in  Lectures  on   Mo- 


3  Chap.  iii. 

4  See  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  90.    Then  a  man 
should  act  so  that,  it'  other  men  followed 
his  example,  the  general  good  would  be 


promoted. 

5  Chap.  v.  sect.  5  and  fi.  chap.  ix. 
sect.  6.  See  also  Rutherforth's  Charges, 
P,  1. 


422  ASSENT    TO    ARTICLES  [III.  xii.  1,  2. 

rality,  may  be  adopted  here.  Be  of  the  established  religion,  II 
when  it  is  not  intolerably  at  variance  with  your  opinions  ;  when 
it  is,  be  of  that,  ceteris  paribus,  from  which  you  differ  least — 
which  you  can  join  with  the  least  disturbance  to  the  minds  of 
other  men,  with  the  least  interruption  of  any  thing  that  is  use 
ful :  but  be  of  any  religion  rather  than  none1. 


CHAPTER    XII.  122 

OF    THE    ASSENT    OF  THE   CLERGY,    TO   ARTICLES  OF   RELIGION, 
AS    DISTINGUISHED    FROM    THAT    OF    THE    LAITY. 

1.  SUCH  are  the  liberties  in  giving  assent  to  articles  of  re 
ligion,    arising  from   the  nature  of  human  affairs.      Another 
liberty  is  sometimes  claimed,  founded  on  this  question :   Have 
not  the  laity  more  liberty,  in  assenting  to  forms  of  doctrine, 
than  the  clergy  ?  is  not  the  assent  of  those,  who  are  taught,  to 
be  considered  in  a  different  light  from  that  of  those,  who  are 
qualified   to   teach  ?      Some   persons   have  made   such   a   dis 
tinction,  and  it  seems  worthy  of  notice. 

Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
C{  and  his  followers"  "were  willing  to  receive  the  laity  who 
came  over  from  the  Arians,  upon  renouncing  their  error  ;  but 
they  would  not  consent  that  bishops,  who  had  complied  with 
the  Arians,  should  be  received  as  such.  They  might,  upon 
returning  to  the  Catholics,  be  received  as  laymen,  but  they 
were  not  any  more  to  officiate  in  the  church."  "  This  occa 
sioned  a  schism2."" 

Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  Introduction  to  his  Exposition  of 
the  39  Articles3,  says,  "As  to  the  laity,  and  the  whole  body 
of  the  people,  certainly  to  them  these  are  only  the  Articles  of 
Church-communion ;  so  that  every  person  who  does  not  think 
that  there  is  some  proposition  in  them  that  is  erroneous  to  so 
high  a  degree,  that  he  cannot  hold  communion  with  such  as  hold  12.3 
it,  may  and  is  obliged  to  continue  in  our  communion." 

2.  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  but  there  is  some  difference 
between  clergy  and  laity,  as  to  subscribing  or  assenting  to  arti- 

1  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  258.  -  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  3?2. 

3  P.  7,  Bvo. 


III.  xii.  3,  4.]      BY    THE    CLERGY    AND    LAITY.  423 

II.  cles  of  religion ;  but  the  nature  of  that  difference  may  occasion 
some  doubt.  The  question  seems  to  be,  whether  it  is  a  differ 
ence  in  kind  or  only  in  degree.  It  appears  to  me  rather  of  the 
latter  sort ;  but  our  best  method  will  be,  to  examine  the  princi 
pal  things  in  which  we  see  the  difference  consist.  From  such 
an  examination  the  nature  of  the  difference  will  best  appear.  If 
we  find  that,  in  some  cases,  the  assent  is  exactly  the  same,  and 
in  others  the  difference  can  be  accounted  for,  without  having 
recourse  to  different  kinds  of  assent,  the  conclusion  will  be,  that 
the  assent  differs  only  in  degree. 

3.  One  difference  between  clergy  and  laity  is,  that  all  the 
clergy  give  a  solemn  assent  to  a  body  of  doctrines,  and  only  part 
of  the  laity  ;   so  that  many  laymen  never  assent  expressly  at  all. 
Nor  is  this  peculiar  to  any  one  country.    The  reason  of  the  dif 
ference  is  general,  and  lies  in  the  ends  or  purposes  for  which 
assent  is  required.      The  end  of  assent  or  subscription  in  the 
clergy  is,  that  there  may  be  unity  of  doctrine,  or  teaching  ;   all 
being  teachers,  all  must  subscribe :  but  the  design  of  assent  in 
the  laity  is  only  to  prevent  competitions4,  cabals,  animosities, 
&c.  when  power  or  authority  is  used  to  favour  opposite  parties. 
Therefore  only  those  laymen  need  assent  to  established  doctrine 
who  are  entrusted  with  authority.      Others  seem  to  be  concern 
ed  with  it  only  as  it  is  taught  to  them.     Thus,  a  private  man 
may  pass  his  whole  life  without  once  solemnly  declaring  his 
opinions,  and  they  therefore  may  continue  unknown.      It  may 

124  indeed  be  said,  that  the  mere  declaration,  or  subscription, 
makes  no  difference  to  an  honest  man.  Whether  called  upon 
or  not,  he  will  think  himself  bound  to  comply  with  the  laws  of 
his  society,  or  to  withdraw  from  it.  In  some  cases  this  idea  is 
very  proper  and  pertinent,  but  not  in  the  present ;  as  a  man 
may  perhaps  obey  all  laws  without  declaring  his  opinion.  Good 
governors  will  not  require  an  unity  of  opinion,  except  where 
they  are  obliged  to  it;  and  therefore,  when  they  do  not  require 
it,  any  man  may  conclude  that  it  is  not  necessary,  and  that  it 
is  not  expected ;  nor  will  there  be  any  grounds  for  thinking  it 
is  tacitly  engaged  for. 

4.  Another  difference  between  clergy  and  laity  is,  that, 
when  the  laity  do  subscribe,  or  give  a  solemn  assent,  they  are 
not  conceived  to  have  so  distinct  an  understanding  of  the  doc 
trines  they  assent  to  as  the  clergy.     More  doctrines  are  to  them 
upon  the  footing  of  unintelligible  doctrines;  and,  on  that  ac- 

4  Chap.  v.  sect.  6. 


424  ASSENT    TO    ARTICLES.  [III.  XU.  5,  6. 

count,  they  have  greater  liberty.  When  a  man^s  occupation,  II. 
be  it  bodily  labour,  or  science,  or  government,  prevents  him 
from  understanding  a  doctrine,  that  doctrine  should  be,  humanly 
speaking,  called  unintelligible.  Not  that  he  is  allowed  to  be 
insincere,  or  careless.  He  is  to  judge  as  well  as  he  can,  partly 
from  grounds  and  reasons,  and  partly  from  the  authority  of 
others ;  and  such  judgment  as  he  does  form  he  ought  to  declare 
sincerely.  The  difference  here  stated  is  a  difference  in  degree 
only ;  for  the  same  difference  is  allowed  amongst  different  ranks 
of  clergy1.  If  we  begin  from  the  child  repeating  his  creed2, 
and  rise  through  all  higher  orders,  the  assent  keeps  constantly 
varying,  but  only  in  degree.  This  it  does,  though  one  form  of 
words  is  used  by  all  who  give  their  assent. 

5.  When  we  speak  of  men  as  prevented  by  occupations   125 
from  seeing  minutely  the  nature  of  religious  doctrines,  we  only 
speak  in  general :   there  may  be  some  individuals  who  have  op 
portunities  of  knowing  as  much  of  religion  as  professed  divines3. 
When  these  men  subscribe  to  articles  of  religion,  they  seem  to 
subscribe  exactly  on  the   same  footing  with  clergy.      In  what 
would  the  assent  of  Mr.  Locke,  Lord  Lyttelton,  Mr.  Nelson, 
Mr.  Boyle,    Sir   Isaac  Newton,  or  Mr.  West,  differ  from  that 

of  a  clergyman  ?  in  nothing  that  I  can  see.  Yet  here  the  dif 
ference  of  assent  must  continue,  if  it  depended  only  on  clergy 
and  laity.  The  reason  which  Dr.  Powell  gives  for  the  sub 
scription  of  the  clergy,  might  be  extended  to  the  laity4.  It 
cannot  be  imagined,  on  a  footing  of  probability  or  experience, 
that  magistrates  (and  laymen  only  subscribe  when  they  are 
such)  would  encourage,  or  even  protect,  the  favourers  of  opi 
nions  which  they  did  not  favour  themselves,  or  at  least  believe 
so  far  as  not  to  reject  or  disapprove  them ;  supposing  magis 
trates  to  enter  fully  into  the  grounds  of  such  opinions. 

6.  The   last   difference  between  clergy  and  laity  that  I 
shall  mention  is,  that  of  the  effect  of  a  given  disapprobation  of 
the  doctrines  of  any  church.      Suppose  Mr.  Locke  dissented 
from  the  Church  of  England  in  six  points,  and  his  antagonist, 
the  Bishop  of  Worcester,  in  the  same  number;  though  their 
declaration  of  opinion  would  be  of  the  same  nature,  the  effect  of 
their  dissent  might  be  different.     Each  of  them  is  to  choose  the 
least  evil ;    but,   supposing  the  prelate  uneasy  about  his  six 
points,  he  might  find  it  the  least  evil  to  quit  the  ministry ;  and 

1  Book  III.  chap.  x.  sect.  II.  I       3  Book  II.  chap.  iv.  sect.  4. 

2  Powell,  pp.  40,  41.  4  Powell,  p.  33. 


III.  xili.  1.]          ASSENTING    AND    CONFORMING.  425 

II.  yet  Mr.  Locke  might  not  find  it  the  least  evil  to  quit  the  Church. 

126'  Or,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  the  bishop  might  quit  the 
ministry,  and  yet  continue  in  the  church.  He  who  quits  the 
ministry  only  quits  an  occupation  ;  and,  if  he  is  diligent,  may 
find  another.  He  who  quits  the  church  may  find  it  impossible 
to  meet  with  another  which  will  answer  his  purpose ;  or  at  least 
may  be  put  to  very  great  inconvenience,  if  he  attempts  it.  As 
a  clergyman,  a  person  lives  under  the  condition  of  his  subscrip 
tion  ;  and,  if  he  would  not  subscribe  at  any  time,  he  does  not 
at  that  time  lawfully  hold  that  which,  without  subscribing,  he 
could  not  have  acquired  ;  but  the  layman  may  retire,  so  as  never 
to  subscribe  again,  and  may  live  in  that  situation  for  which  sub 
scription  would  never  have  been  required. 


127  CHAPTER    XIII. 

OF    THE    DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN    ASSENTING    AND 
DETERMINING    TO    CONFORM. 

1.  THE  last  liberty,  which  has  been  claimed,  turns,  in 
some  sort,  upon  the  distinction  now  mentioned.  Burnet  claims 
it  for  the  laity  (as  we  have  seen),  but  some  claim  it  even  for  the 
clergy.  He  however  refuses  it  to  teachers  of  religion5.  Accord 
ing  to  our  account,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  they  are  reduced 
to  one;  but  we  now  must  have  the  clergy  chiefly  in  view. 
What  is  said  may  be  easily  applied  to  laity,  if  occasion  should 
require  it.  Bingham  says  (Apology,  Book  II.  chap.  i.  or 
Works,  vol.  n.  p.  723,)  "What  is  meant  by  subscription  to  ar 
ticles  of  our  Church,  is  not  exactly  agreed  by  those  that  sub 
scribe  them.  Some  take  them  only  for  articles  of  peace  ;  and 
they  by  subscription  mean  no  more  than  this,  that  they  will  so 
far  own  and  submit  to  them  as  not  publicly  to  dissent  from 
them,  or  teach  any  doctrine  that  is  contrary  to  any  thing  con 
tained  in  them.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  judgment  of 
Archbishop  Bramhall,  Bishop  Fowler,  and  others.  But  gene 
rally,  subscription  is  considered  in  a  stricter  sense ;  as  imply 
ing  a  declaration  of  our  own  opinion,  and  not  as  a  bare  obliga 
tion  to  silence  only :  and  this  seems  rather  to  have  been  the  in 
tent  and  meaning  of  the  Church." 

5  Introd.  to  Articles,  p.  7>  8vo. 


426  ASSENTING    AND    CONFORMING.      [III.  xtii.  2,  3. 

In  order  to  explain  more  fully  the  nature  of  our  present  II. 
distinction,  we  may  suppose  a  clergyman,  or  one  about  to  enter 
into  the  ministry,  to  say  in  his  own  mind,  Articles  of  religion  128 
are  intended  to  produce  unity  in  teaching ;  and  assenting  to 
them  answers  no  other  purpose ;  if  then  I  determine  to  preach 
only  established  doctrines,  what  does  it  signify  whether  I  be 
lieve  them  or  not  ?  A  man  might  wish  to  adopt  such  reasoning, 
particularly  if  he  found  himself  only  half  satisfied  about  some 
points  ;  and  he  might  confirm  himself  in  it  by  saying,  that  his 
opinion  was  a  matter  of  little  consequence.  The  church  profes 
sed  the  points  ;  that  is,  a  set  of  learned  and  able  men  believed 
them :  whether  such  an  insignificant  individual  as  he  did,  was 
not  worth  inquiring. 

2.  Now,  though  it  is  self-evident,  it  may  be  worth  while 
to  observe,  that,  if  it  were  allowed  by  the  particular  laws  of  any 
church  to  promise  compliance,  instead  of  professing  opinions, 
sincerity  would  not  be  violated  by  a  person's  promising  to  teach 
that  of  which  he  was  not  well  satisfied.     It  is  worth  while  to 
observe  this,  because  there  is  an  appearance  of  duplicity  or  in 
sincerity  in  such  conduct,  in  teaching  doctrines  and  performing 
ceremonies  which  you  do  not  approve ;  and  there  are  limits 
which  ought  not  to  be  exceeded,  in  teaching  and  acting  contrary 
to  our  opinions.    No  man  ought  to  promise  to  teach  any  thing 
contrary  to  what  he  esteems  fundamental  principles  of  natural 
or  revealed  religion;  or  inconsistent  with  men's  being  "careful 
to  maintain  good  works1." 

3.  The  principal  thing  which  seems  wanting,  in  some  who 
mention  this  subject,  is,  attention  to  different  situations.     It  is 
one  thing  to  make  laws,  another  to  obey  them.      If  we  are  in  a 
council  of  those  who  are  making  laws  for  the  government  of  a 
church,  we  may  urge,  let  not  needless  restraints  be  imposed:   129 
if  it  appears  that  teachers  will  faithfully  teach  none  but  esta 
blished  doctrines,  and  will  teach  them  with  zeal,  and  diligence, 
and  unanimity,  let  them  not  be  pressed  to  define  and  declare 
minutely  their  opinions  ;   but,  if  it  seems  probable  that   they 
will  not  confine  themselves  to  established  doctrines,  or  that,  if 
they  do,  they  will  be  remiss  in  teaching  them ;   still  more,  if 
different  teachers  seem  likely  to  enter  into  disputes2  about  the 
doctrines  they  teach,  no  remedy  seems  adequate  to  such  a  dis 
order  but  having  men  of  the  same  opinion  ;   not  in  every  thing, 

1  Tit.  iii.  8.  The  essentials  of  a  Christian  church  were  mentioned  chap.  xi.  sect.  4. 

2  Chap.  v.  sect.  6. 


III.  xiii.  4,  5.]        ASSENTING    AND    CONFORMING.  427 

II.  but  in  all  things  which  distinguish  and  separate  one  church  from 
another.  I  may  say  this  in  this  place,  because  it  seems  wanted  ; 
though  it  more  properly  belongs  to  chap.  v. 

4.  But,  whatever  might  be  right  in  a  council  of  legislators, 
yet,  when  a  law  is  made,  and  continues  in  force,  it  is  to  be 
obeyed;  and  that  is  properly  the  situation  which  we  now  sup 
pose.     If  then  a  law  exists  requiring  assent  to  certain  doctrines, 
or  agreement  in  opinion,  we  now  inquire,   whether  a  man's  ho 
nest  intention    to   teach   the   doctrines   faithfully    will  excuse 
his   want  of  believing  them.     When  all  has  been  recollected 
which  has  been  said  about  unintelligible  doctrines,  and  all  the 
liberties  allowed,   which   have  been  explained  in  this   Book, 
we  maintain,  that  such  intention  will  not  be  sufficient  with 
out    such  belief  as  will   remain  after  all   those  liberties  have 
been  taken. 

In  order  to  see  the  ground  of  this  assertion,  we  observe, 
that  assent  is  required  as  a  means  of  maintaining  unity  of  doc 
trine,  and  as  a  security  that  it  shall  not  be  infringed.  Dr. 
PowelPs3  manner  of  expressing  this  has  been  already  men 
tioned.  We  will  consider  the  notions  of  means  and  security 
130  separately;  though  certainly  a  security  might  be  ranked  amongst 
means. 

5.  When  certain  means  of  answering  any  end  are  fixed 
upon  by  authority,   private  judgment  ought  not  to  aim  at  an 
swering  that  end  without  those  means.     For  wisdom  is  as  much 
shewn  in  fixing  upon  good  means  as  in  aiming  at  good  ends; 
nay,  there  are   many  who  could   perceive  certain  ends   to  be 
good  and   useful,  and  desirable,  who  could  do  very  little  to 
wards  attaining  those  ends ;   that  is,  towards  inventing  proper 
means,  and  rendering  them  efficacious  in  practice.     It  is  there 
fore  great  rashness  and  presumption  to  alter  fixed  means.     By 
such  indiscretion,  the  best  ends  may  be  frustrated ;   and,  conse 
quently,  authority  is  as  much  to  be  obeyed  in  respect  to  means 
as  to  end.     But  this  is  particularly  to  be  observed  when  the 
person  principally  concerned  is  much  prejudiced  or  interested; 
he  who  is  to  obey  might  better  be  trusted  to  alter  any  means 
for  others  than  for  himself.      If  you  entrust  a  matter  of  con 
sequence  to  any  one,  you  wish  to  see  how  he  is  qualified.    It  is 
not  enough  for  him  to  say,  "  I  will  take  care."     You  want  to 
know  what  reason  he  has  to  be  confident ;   how  he   has  been 
brought  up;   what  experience  he  has  had;  but,  above  all,  what 

3  Chap.  v.  sect.  2. 


428  ASSENTING    AND    CONFORMING.       [III.  xtii.  6,  7. 

turn  or  disposition1  he  has  for  the  kind  of  undertaking — what  II. 
his  habitual  tastes,  feelings,  opinions  are.      On  these  you  ground 
your  hopes  of  success  ;  and,  if  he  has  no  turn  for  the  thing,  if 
his  notions  run  in  a  different  channel,  you  dare  not  trust  to  his 
mere  industry,  and  sense  of  duty.    When  a  task  is  irksome, 
it  seems  drudgery  ;   and  every  opportunity  is  taken  of  evading  131 
it,  even,  it  is  to  be  feared,  by  those  who  profess  to  follow  the 
dictates  of  duty. 

6.  In  like  manner,  we  may  observe,  that,  when  a  certain 
security  is  fixed  upon  by  authority,  it  ought  not  to  be  neglect 
ed,  under  pretence  that  the  danger  may  be  otherwise  avoided. 
It  has  been  owned,  that  a  pledge  or  security  for  the  perform 
ance  of  any  covenant  is  one  of  the  means  of  getting  it  per 
formed  ;  but  yet  it  seems  worth  some  distinct  consideration. 
Put  the  case,  that  a  man  left  his  fortune  to  his  son,  on  con 
dition  that  he  gave  a  bond  of  500/.  to  an  old  servant  to  pay  him 
an  annuity  for  life  of  50/.  a  year2:  the  son  would  not  satisfy  his 
father's  will,  by  determining  to  pay  the  annuity ;  he  must  also 
give  the  bond  ;  if  he  does  not  give  that  particular  security  he  is 
not  in  justice  entitled  to  his  fortune.  He  who  presumes  that 
he  may  neglect  his  promise  of  that  agreement  of  opinion,  on 
which  the  Church  depends  chiefly  for  the  performance  of  the 
pastoral  duty,  cannot  consistently  require  a  promissory  note  or 
legal  receipt  for  any  sum  which  he  pays. 

7-  It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that,  while  articles 
of  faith  exist,  any  one  who  is  lawfully  called  to  assent  to  them 
must,  in  strictness  of  duty,  not  only  determine  to  act  regularly, 
but  to  declare  his  real  opinion.  It  must  not  however  be  for 
gotten,  that  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  all  engagements 

O  7  o  O     O 

and  promises  depends  on  the  sense  in  which  they  are  understood 
by  those  to  whom  they  are  made.  If,  therefore,  the  Church 
shows  any  marks  of  change  in  action  or  measures,  it  may  be 
presumed  that  it  makes  some  change  in  the  security  which  it 
requires.  If  they  grow  remiss  about  certain  doctrines  being  132 
taught,  he  may  be  the  less  nice  about  his  opinion  of  such 
doctrines. 

And,  though  certain  doctrines  were  not  given  up,  yet,  if  it 


1  Inquiries  like  the  following  are  al 
ways  esteemed  proper,  or  even  necessary  : 
If  any  one  desires  to  be  a  sailor,  does  he 
relish  a  seafaring  life  ?  if  to  be  a  groom, 
does  he  like  horses  ?  if  to  be  a  nurse, 
does  she  like  children  ?  if  to  be  a  poet- 


laureat,  has  he  a  turn  for  poetry  ?    and 


so  on. 


2  This  was  a  bequest  of  a  person  to 
whom  I  was  executor ;  and  I  insisted  on 
the  bond. 


III.  xiii.  8.]       ASSENTING    AND    CONFORMING.  429 

1 1.  appear  that  some  change  has  happened,  which  makes  it  evidently 
less  needful  for  the  Church  to  require  security ',  it  may  be  fairly 
presumed  that  less  security  is  required;  and  therefore,  during 
such  change,  those  opinions  which  relate  to  it  need  be  less 
strictly  examined ;  for  the  opinions  are  the  security.  Certain 
doctrines  of  a  church  may  be  opposed  to  some  particular 
heresy ;  that  heresy  ceases ;  though  the  church  continues  to 
profess  the  same  doctrines,  yet  it  does  not  so  much  want  them 
to  be  taught,  nor  therefore  does  it  want  so  much  security  that 
they  will  be  taught.  But  these  changes  only  affect  men's  assent, 
or  the  necessity  of  their  settling  their  opinions ;  they  do  not 
affect  the  determination  to  conform  ;  nothing  relaxes  that  deter 
mination,  though  conformity  may  vary  in  some  particulars. 

Again.  It  has  been  laid3  down,  that,  if  ministers  would  all 
be  regular,  and  unanimously  teach  the  established  doctrine, 
and  this  could  be  depended  on  beforehand,  there  need  be  no 
articles  of  religion  made.  If,  therefore,  a  general  spirit  of  sub 
mission  to  rule  and  order  shews  itself,  where  they  have  been 
made  for  a  length  of  time,  the  church  must  be  presumed  to  ap 
proach  nearer  and  nearer  to  that  disposition  in  which  they 
would  have  made  none ;  and,  whenever  the  church  shows  itself 
at  ease  about  security,  the  clergy  may  be  less  nice  about  their 
opinions  ;  these  being,  as  before,  the  security. 

8.  It  must  not  however  be  thought  that  any  relaxation, 
remissness,  or  indulgence,  in  a  church,  can  justify  any  attempts 
133  against  its  welfare.  The  moment  any  clergyman  thinks  of 
acting  the  part  of  an  enemy,  the  old  security  becomes  necessary, 
and  therefore  all  the  original  strictness  of  obligation  revives. 
Opinions  must  be  professed,  and  no  want  of  attention  to  them 
can  be  presumed. 

To  make  use  of  any  appearance  of  indulgence,  so  as  to  do 
harm  to  him  who  is  inclined  to  shew  it,  and  so  as  to  neglect  his 
rights,  is  both  unjust  and  ungenerous.  Would  any  one  think 
of  justifying  a  servant  who  received  wages  of  his  master, 
and  betrayed  him  ?  especially  if,  besides  paying  his  regular 
stipend,  his  master  placed  confidence  in  him?  the  master's 
being  an  individual  or  a  society  can  make  no  difference.  Con 
fidence  may  give  liberty,  as  to  particular  means ;  but  it  ought 
to  make  the  end  more  certainly  to  be  depended  on ;  otherwise 
he  who  is  trusted  is  doubly  blamable — for  breach  of  fidelity, 
and  for  breach  of  confidence. 

3  Chap.  v.  sect,  5. 


430  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE  [III.  XIV.  1. 

I  have  already  produced  some  passages  of  Dr.  Balguy  to  II. 
our  present  purpose1. 

Bishop  Burnet  agrees  in  opinion2.  He  also  lays  down 
the  distinction,  though  somewhat  faintly,  between  making  laws 
and  obeying  them. 

Bingham  only  mentions3  the  two  different  ways  of  engaging 
to  obey  the  laws  of  the  Church.  He  gives  the  same  judgment 
that  we  do,  though  with  great  moderation  ;  but,  as  he  only  re 
marks  by  the  way,  he  does  not  enter  into  the  difference  arising 
from  a  law  having  or  not  having  been  made. 

Bishop  Law^  confines  himself  wholly  to  the  business  of 
legislation,  as  indeed  his  subject  naturally  led  him  to  do.  He  134 
does  not  seem  to  allow  that  any  case  can  justify  requiring  a 
declaration  of  opinion  ;  and  in  that  he  contradicts  what  little 
we  have  said  on  that  part  of  the  subject.  As  he  gives  no 
reasons,  our  arguments  remain  in  full  force.  Dr.  Balguy,  in  his 
admirable  Charge5,  has  in  view  the  making  of  laws ;  not,  what 
is  our  principal  point,  the  nature  of  obedience. 


CHAPTER   XIV.  135 

OF    THE    AUTHORITY    OF    THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE, 
AS    INFLUENCING    RELIGIOUS    SOCIETY. 

1.  NOTHING  has  hitherto  been  said,  in  treating  of  religious 
society,  about  the  civil  Magistrate.  He  is  not  indeed  essential 
to  religious  society ;  yet  his  influence  upon  it  is  so  powerful, 
and  has  occasioned  so  many  disputes,  (which  are  still  very 
warm,)  that  he  must  not  be  passed  over. 

Hitherto  religious  society  has  been  considered  simply  in  it- 
pelf.  Every  society  is  carried  on  by  a  common  understanding; 
and  the  modes  by  which  it  attains  its  ends  must  be  prescribed 
by  laws.  Ecclesiastical  society  can  have  no  power  but  over 
the  minds  of  its  members;  nor  can  that  power  be  enforced  any 
other  way  than  by  expulsion,  or  excommunication.  There 
may  be  trials,  sentences,  censures,  punishments,  in  such  society; 


1  Chap.  v.  sect.  6. 

2  Introd.  p.  7}  Mvo. 

3  See  the  passage  beginning  of  chap. 


xnu 


4  Considerations   on  the  Propriety  of 
requiring  a  Subscription  to  Articles  of 
Faith,  p.  23. 

5  Charge  V. 


III.  Xiv.  2.]  AS    INFLUENCING    RELIGION.  431 

II.  but  they  must  all  be  submitted  to,  as  being  less  evils  than 
excommunication.  The  obligations  to  submit  arise  from  the 
benefits  of  the  kind  of  society  ;  and  the  evils  of  being6  excluded 
from  it,  both  to  the  individual  and  to  the  public,  make  it  every 
one's  duty  to  submit  to  every  thing  which  can  possibly  be  rea 
sonable,  rather  than  bring  on  an  exclusion.  Whatever  alter- 

136  ations  a  church  may  happen  to  undergo,  through  the  influence 
of  civil  power,  this  notion  of  it  is  always  to  be  kept  in  mind. 
But  to  enter  on  the  perilous  subject.     When  we  say  the  civil 
magistrate,  we  mean  that  person,  or  those  persons,  be  they  few 
or  many,  in  whom  the  power  of  the  state  is  vested. 

2.  The  civil  magistrate  cannot  be  supposed  to  overlook  or 
neglect  religion  :  it  is  very  powerful,  both  in  doing  good  and 
harm  to  civil  communities.  This  has  been  always  so  evident, 
that  no  magistrate  was  ever7  known  who  did  not  establish  some 

O 

religion  or  other.  A  magistrate,  as  a  magistrate,  is  not  to  be 
supposed  to  prefer  any  one  on  account  of  truth,  but  utility. 
His  view  is  to  benefit  the  state ;  and  therefore  he  must  fix  on 
that  society  which  will  be  most  advantageous  to  the  state ;  that 
is,  generally  speaking,  on  the  largest,  though  some  doctrines 
are  better  suited  to  civil  government  than  others8.  If  it  seems 
strange  that  regard  should  not  be  paid  to  truth,  we  must  con 
sider  that  the  difference  between  religious  societies  consists 
generally  in  things  mysterious,  or  things  arbitrary9;  that  a 
mere  statesman  will  not  be  nice  about  either ;  and  if  he  is,  it  is 
in  his  private  capacity,  of  which  we  here  take  no  account :  and 
moreover,  that  great  harm  has  arisen  from  a  magistrate's  being 
supposed  to  encourage  opinions  as  truths,  or  discourage  them 
as  errors.  He,  in  his  civil  capacity,  is  no  judge  of  such  things: 
he  is  only  to  encourage  what  will  be  useful  to  the  state,  and 
discourage  what  will  be  hurtful10.  Opinions  of  dissenters 

137  should  be  regarded  (so  long  as  they  are  harmless)  as  equally 
true  with    opinions  of  members  of   the    established    Church. 
One  may  conceive  a  justice  of  peace,   with  us,  to  say,  in  any 
dispute,  to  a  dissenter,  '  whatever  I  may  think  of  your  notions, 
you  are  as  much  under  the  protection  of  the  law  as  any  other 


6  Chap.  xi.  sect.  2. 

7  Warb.  All.  Append,  p.  5. 


they  come  to  be  established;  but  we  are 
now  speaking  of  fixing  upon  a  religion, 


See  Dr.  Balguy's  5th  Charge,  p.  2f!5.    !    in  order  to  establish  it.     In  practice,  the 


9  Chap.  xi.  sect.  10. 

10  It  would  be  better  (according  to 
chap.  xii.  sect.  (»)  that  magistrates  should 
really  favour  established  opinions,  when 


religion  would  often  precede  the  election 
of  magistrates  :  they  would  be  elected  so 
as  to  suit  it. 


432  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE  [III.  xiv.  3,  4. 

subject  can  be.  When  I  act  as  a  private  man,  I  go  to  another  II. 
religious  assembly  rather  than  your's,  but,  when  I  act  as  a 
magistrate,  all  stand  before  me  on  an  equal  footing,  as  far  as 
regards  mere  opinion.'  Were  it  not  so  men  might  be  properly 
said  to  be  persecuted  for  opinion.  Such  persecution  is  always 
unjust. 

3.  But  let  us  more  particularly  consider  how  religion  may 
be  a  powerful  friend,  or  enemy,  to  the  magistrate  or  state. 

Religion  makes  the  magistrate  to  be  respected ;  sets  him  in 
the  light  of  a  sacred  character :  it  affords  him  the  sanction  of 
oaths;  it  gives  his  subjects  such  motives  of  action  as  no  civil 
expedients  could  give ;  makes  them  do  what  he  would  wish  to 
be  done,  through  the  belief  of  an  omniscient  Being,  perpetually 
present,  who  will  reward  and  punish  beyond  any  assignable 
limits — a  Being  whom  they  may  love  with  great  warmth  of 
affection,  whom  they  may  fear  to  any  degree.  From  these  mo 
tives  good  actions  arise,  which  no  civil  law  can  enforce  or  even 
describe,  much  less  reward;  and  bad  actions  are  avoided,  which 
no  civil  law  could  punish.  Thus  religion  supplies  every  de 
fect  of  civil  government,  and  transfers  to  the  magistrate  even 
the  power  of  the  Supreme  Being  himself. 

Religion  may  also  be  a  powerful  enemy  to  the  magistrate. 
It  sometimes  acts  so  violently  as  to  overpower  all  human  re-  138 
sistance.  When  men  fancy  themselves  inspired  by  God,  they 
fear  nothing  that  man  can  do  unto  them  ;  and  though  religion, 
when  well  regulated,  aims  to  promote  virtue,  yet  it  can,  in  its 
disordered  state,  perform  the  worst  services  of  vice,  and  effect 
the  most  dreadful  mischiefs1.  And,  though  religion  should  not 
attack  the  magistrate,  or  act  in  direct  opposition  to  him,  yet, 
if  it  only  agitates  different  sects,  and  exasperates  them  against 
each  other,  it  will  make  all  regular  government  impracticable. 

4.  Religion  then  cannot  be  a  thing  indifferent  to  a  magis 
trate.     If  he  has   but  one  society  in  his  dominions,  he   will 
regulate  it ;   but,  if  he  has  several,  his  conduct  may  require 
consideration.    What  we  say  is,  that  he  should  make  an  alii- 
ance  with  the  most  powerful,  (except  its  tenets  are  some  way 
particularly  unfavourable  to  government) ;  or,  to  use  the  com 
mon  term,  should  make  it  the  Establishment ;   should  protect, 
encourage  it,  as  his  ally;   and  leave  the  rest  as  they  were — 
independent,  secure^  capable  of  every  religious  act  of  which 
they  were  capable  before   the  alliance.      In  order  that  they 

1  Tantum  relligio  potuit  suadere  malorum. — Lucretius. 


III.  xiv.  5.]  AS    INFLUENCING    RELIGION.  433 

II.  should  be  so,  he  must  take  care  that  no  one  interrupts  them 
with  impunity :  they  still  consist  of  subjects,  who  ought  to  be 
protected  in  their  religious  acts,  as  well  as  in  their  agricul 
ture  and  commerce.  This  protection  has  usually  amongst  us 
the  name  of  toleration  ;  a  term  which  might  not  have  been 
used,  if,  in  fact,  it  had  not  been  preceded  by  prohibition  of 
religious  acts  interfering  with  the  universality  of  the  establish 
ment. 

When  religions  are  tolerated,  it  is  supposed  that  they  do  no 

139  harm  to  the  civil  constitution.  If  their  tenets  are  such  as  to 
have  a  strong  tendency  to  injure  that,  it  would  be  perfectly 
just  for  the  magistrate  to  defend  himself  against  them  by  re 
straints  suited  to  particular  occasions,  or  even  to  banish  thema. 
But  he  will  generally  forbear  to  do  that,  in  as  great  a  degree 
as  he  dare,  till  the  danger  is  near.  During  such  forbearance 
such  hurtful  sects  are  not  said  to  be  tolerated.  Connivance* 
is  applied  to  them,  rather  than  toleration. 

5.  But  farther,  we  would  affirm,  that,  wherever  there  is  an 
established  religion,  there  the  magistrate  has  made  an  alliance 
with  that  religion  ;  and,  from  the  nature  and  terms  of  that 
alliance,  all  their  relative  duties  must  be  derived. 

Has  made  an  alliance !  you  will  say — fanciful  and  visionary ! 
nothing  is  more  clear  than  that,  in  fact,  no  such  alliance 
was  ever  made :  what  right  can  any  one  have  to  use  such 
language  ?  This  we  will  endeavour  to  shew. 

Men  acquire  their  knowledge  gradually,  by  experience. 
The  first  attempts  are  almost  in  the  dark ;  they  feel  after  it, 
if  haply4  they  may  find  it,  and  they  find  a  little  here  and  a 
little  there,  encumbered  with  error  or  perplexity  at  first,  though 
afterwards  it  gets  cleared  away.  When  they  have  acquired  a 
good  deal,  they  can  look  back,  and  see  how  they  could  have 
acquired  it  better.  This  is  the  case  in  acquiring  notions  of 
an  useful  intercourse  amongst  men,  as  well  as  in  other  things. 
One  man  gets  power  over  another,  at  first  a  little  too  much ; 
some  is  taken  away,  then  he  has  rather  too  little;  it  vibrates 
for  a  while,  and  then  settles  in  the  right  point.  Retrospect 
shews  by  what  method  or  plan  this  might  have  been  settled 
sooner,  or  from  the  first.  4  When  this  is  seen,  the  only  right 

110  conduct  must  be,  to  act  after  this  plan;  and  to  conceive  it  to 
have  been  all  along  agreed  upon.  In  truth,  it  is  valid  and 

-  Balguy,  Charge  III.  I       4  Acts  xvii.  27 .   See  Parkhurst's  Lex- 

8  Warb.  Alliance,  pp.  304,  312.  i    icon,  under  ^r^\a<pdia. 

VOL.  I.  28 


434  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE  [III.  xiv.  6. 

obligatory.      What  ought  to  have  been  always,   ought  to  be  II. 
now  :   to  make  it  obligatory  now  is  only  to  waive  all  advan 
tage  from   the  ignorance  of  those  who  have  been  gradually 
learning  what  ought  to  be  done1. 

This  reasoning  may  be  applied  to  the  civil  compact  between 
magistrate  and  subject.  By  long  experience  it  is  found  out 
(in  good  measure  perhaps)  what  they  ought  to  have  stipulated 
at  first,  had  they  known  their  own  interests.  Such  stipulation 
is  supposed  to  have  taken  place,  and  questions  are  decided  by 
it.  As  to  past  facts,  this  may  be  considered  as  a  supposition, 
but  it  is  all  founded  on  experience — on  practice,  and  not  on 
theory.  If  any  disputes  arise  about  what  ought  to  have  been 
originally  stipulated,  they  can  only  be  decided  by  referring  to 
the  general  good  of  mankind2. 

The  same  reasoning  may  be  applied  to  the  alliance  which 
we  suppose  to  have  been  made  between  church  and  state. 
The  magistrate  would  never,  in  fact,  leave  religion  entirely 
to  itself.  He  would  interfere  with  it  more  than  he  ought ;  then 
the  church  would  declare  its  divine3  origin,  and  claim  inde-  141 
pende  nee ;  and  so  on,  till  it  appeared  what  kind  of  agreement 
ought  to  have  been  made,  and  then  that  would  be  supposed 
to  have  been  always  in  force.  The  supposition  should  decide 
all  particular  questions ;  though  some  inconveniences  and  im 
perfections  might  remain  ;  of  which  it  could  only  be  said,  they 
must  be  put  up  with  ;  they  are  the  least  evil.  Bishop  War- 
burton'' s  supposition  of  an  alliance  seems  to  answer  this  descrip 
tion,  and  therefore  on  that  we  may  proceed. 

6.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  an  alliance  was  made  with 
advantages  only  on  one  side.  We  have  mentioned  only  the 
benefits  received  by  the  magistrate;  but  the  church  receives 
protection  and  encouragement.  The  worldly  advantages  to  the 
ministers  are  apt  to  be  reckoned  great  advantages  ;  but  I  would 
chiefly  consider  those  which  enable  religious  society  to  pursue 
and  accomplish  its  peculiar  ends.  Rational  religion  can  only 


1  This  is  something  of  an  hypothesis, 
but  rather  differs  from  that  about  ridicule 
in    the    2d   Book    (chap.  Hi.   sect.   5). 
That  accounts  for  phenomena  of  nature  ; 
this  for  things  contrived  by  art  of  man. 

2  In  recapitulating  this,  Jan.  31,  1794, 
I  supposed  two  persons,  one  higher  and 
better  informed  than  the  other,  to  go  to 
gether  into  the  interior  parts  of  Africa  ; 
not  knowing  what  stipulations  to  make 


with  each  other  before  they  set  out,  but 
only  agreeing,  that,  when  they  came  to 
know  by  experience  what  agreement  they 
ought  to  have  made,  they  would  treat  one 
another  as  if  it  had  been  made  from  the 
beginning.  Would  this  be  mere  theory? 
3  Ou  yap  TL  crol  £o>  6ouXos,  a'XXa 

Ao£ia SOPH.  (Ed.  Tyr.  418. 

I  am  Apollo's  servant,  and  not  thine. 
FRANKLIN. 


III.  xiv.  7,  8.]         AS     INFLUENCING    RELIGION.  435 

II.  bud  and  blossom  in  a  calm  ;  storms  cut  off  all  its  vegetation  ; 
and  yet  religious  society  (as  such)  can  in  no  degree  secure  it 
self.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  be  able  to  pursue  improvement 
of  the  understanding  and  the  heart ;  to  have  all  aids  of  uni 
versities  and  books  for  the  first,  and  of  buildings,  embellish 
ments,  refinements,  for  the  latter  ;  to  have  leisure,  liberal  con 
versation,  &c.  &c.  The  church  also  borrows  a  coercive  power 
from  the  state,  for  the  sake  of  more  effectually  promoting 
good  morals.  Religious  society  has  no  such  power.  It  has 
a  power  of  excommunication  ;  but  even  that  is  different  from 
such  as  takes  place  when  the  state  accompanies  it  with  tem 
poral  penalties. 

7-  Now  this  seems  to  be  properly  the  ivhole  of  the  subject. 
Many  other  things  have  been  added  about  it,  but  they  all 
must  be  referred  to  what  has  now  been  said.  It  will,  how- 

142  ever,  be  proper  to  mention  a  few  of  them,  particularly  as  they 
have  occasioned  disputes. 

The  supremacy,  or  the  king  being  the  head  of  the  church, 
has  occasioned  disputes.  I  use  king  in  the  same  sense  as  ma 
gistrate,  and  only  use  it  at  all  because  it  is  familiar  to  us  of 
this  nation.  All  society  is  meant  to  reduce  many  to  one  ;  so 
therefore  must  alliance.  There  must  be  one  head  :  the  only 
question  can  be,  whether  it  must  be  king  or  priest.  The  king 
being  able  to  protect  both,  the  priest  to  protect  neither,  the 
question  seems  determined*.  It  does  not,  however,  follow  that 
the  king  ever  acts  as  minister  in  religious  assemblies.  He  is  not 
qualified:  he  is  better  occupied  for  the  common  good.  It  is  not 
in  that  way  that  the  church  have  need  of  him,  or  have  desired 
his  alliance. 

8.  The  maintenance  of  the  established  clergy  has  also 
occasioned  disputes.  When  the  magistrate  allies  himself  to  a 
church,  he  must  wish  to  make  the  ministers  of  the  church  re 
spected.  If  his  government  is  a  democracy,  the  ministers  need 
not  have  much  distinction,  for  that  purpose  ;  but,  if  it  is  a 
monarchy,  with  a  nobility  of  different  ranks,  it  will  be  neces 
sary  to  raise  some  clergy  to  each  of  those  ranks  ;  otherwise 
there  would  be  some  subjects  who  would  treat  in  a  contemptu 
ous  manner  the  whole  body  of  clergy  ;  and  affectation  of  the 
manners  of  the  great  would  make  their  example  hurtful.  Be 
sides  these  dignitaries,  there  should  be  other  ranks,  correspond 
ing  to  the  several  ranks  of  subjects;  so  that  each  rank  of  lay- 

4  Warb.  All.  p.  2UO.     Dr.  Ualguy,  p.  101. 


436  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE  [III.  xiv.  9. 

men  should  have  some  clergy  whom  they  should  respect ;   and  II 
that  should  be  effected  with  as  little  expence  to  the  nation  as 
might  be.      I  am  speaking  of  respect  as  paid  to  worldly  conse-  143 
quence1.   It  is  so  in  fact ;  and  provision  should  be  made  accord 
ing  to  fact,  whatever  ought  to  prevail.      We  may  add,  that  a 
seat  amongst  legislators  is  due  to  the  church  in  some  degree ; 
otherwise  there  would  be  no  alliance,  but  an  annihilation  of 
the  church. 

But  the  most  dangerous  question  is,  who  should  pay  this 
expence?  the  answer  must  be,  the  subjects.  What?  dissenters? 
those  who  are  separated  from  the  established  church  ?  and  have 
teachers  of  their  own  to  pay  ?  yes,  so  it  should  seem  ;  for  they 
pay  towards  the  support  of  the  established  ministers  as  sub 
jects — towards  the  support  of  that  which  supports  government. 
Its  being  a  religious  support  misleads  the  judgment,  but  that 
is  merely  accidental.  All  must  contribute  to  it,  as  to  an  army 
or  navy.  If  sectaries  contributed  nothing  it  would  be  a  power 
ful  temptation  to  all  to  quit  the  established  church ;  and  one 
which  would  not  fail  to  thin  it  very  soon. 

But,  do  not  the  teachers  of  sects  support  government  by 
supporting  the  general  principles  of  religion  and  morality? 
why  should  not  taxes,  &c.  levied  on  dissenters  be  paid  to  them? 
The  answer  is,  whatever  is  paid  to  teachers  by  means  of  taxes  is 
paid  by  the  magistrate;  and,  if  the  magistrate  pays  all  religions, 
how  is  he  allied  to  one?  If  he  supports  all  societies,  they  become 
all  political  in  some  degree  :  he  leaves  none  as  merely  religious. 
In  that  case  he  supports2  opposite  religions,  hurtful  religions, 
and  religions  subversive  of  his  own  authority ;  for  the  plea  ex 
tends  to  all3  religions.  Such  a  measure  would  occasion  com-  144 
petition  for  the  higher  offices;  and  generate  disturbances,  which 
would  defeat  the  ends  of  religious  society. 

9.  The  independence  of  the  Church  has  occasioned  dis 
pute.  Our  idea  is,  the  Church  is,  in  itself,  independent ;  that 
is,  before  any  alliance  takes  place ;  and  therefore  each  church  is 
independent  which  is  only  tolerated.  But,  though  one  man  may 
be  independent  of  another,  he  is  not  therefore  at  liberty  to  in 
jure  him  ;  so  no  tolerated  church  has  a  right  to  interfere  with 


1  Poverty  is  a  great  temptation  to  un 
manly  submission,  which  would  occasion 
contempt — Titus  ii.  15. 

a  Dr.  Balguy,  Charge  V. 

3  How  would  it  be  if  the  experiment 
were  tried  of  taxing  every  congregation 


to  pay  its  own  ministers  ?  Care  must  be 
taken,  in  that  case,  to  check  payment  of 
those  that  taught  hurtful  doctrines,  or 
doctrines  Nubi-ert>irc  of  cicil  government. 
Would  that  be  practicable  ?  who  could 
judge  in  such  matters  ? 


Ill.xiv.  10.]  AS    INFLUENCING    RELIGION.  437 

II.  or  endanger  the  safety  of  the  state.  An  established  church,  by 
alliance,  gives  its  power  into  the  hand  of  the  magistrate,  and 
becomes  dependent,  (as  Ireland  may  be  on  England,)  but  does 
not  lose  all  its  rights.  It  is  dependent  for  the  purposes  of  the 
alliance,  and  no  farther.  The  alliance  may  be  called  perpetual, 
because  no  duration  is  specified,  no  limit  is  fixed ;  but  it  is 
revocable*^  if  the  conditions  are  not  observed  on  which  it  was 
made.  Failure  of  protection  makes  void  allegiance. 

Easy  as  this  seems,  many  mistakes  have  been  made  about 
it.  Some  have  held  the  Church  to  be  always  independent,  be 
cause  it  was  so  before  the  alliance.  The  Papists  and  Puritans, 
though  opposed  in  most  things,  both  hold  this.  It  is  said  to  be 
held  in  theory  by  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

Some,  seeing  the  church  governed  by  the  magistrate,  and 
useful  for  political  purposes,  have  called  it  a  creature  of  the 
state;  and  have  thought  of  governing  it  merely  with  political 
views5,  not  with  any  religious  ones.  One  would  not  think  that 
any  considerate  man  could  deny  that  every  religion  must  spring 
up  of  itself.  Did  the  magistrate  invent  the  notion  of  deities, 
and  get  men  to  teach  his  notion  to  the  common  people,  as  you 
145  talk  to  a  child  of  a  bugbear?  did  the  magistrate  invent  enthu 
siasm  and  superstition?  above  all,  did  the  magistrate  invent  the 
Christian  religion  ?  which  made  its  way  to  the  imperial  throne, 
in  spite  of  all  the  opposition  which  magistrates  could  make  to  it? 
And,  if  a  church  had  a  being  of  itself,  it  must  have  rights,  and 
ends  of  its  own,  which  certainly  should  be  consulted  as  well  as 
the  rights  and  benefits  of  a  state6.  The  Jews  had  a  perfect 
incorporation  of  church  and  state  ;  for  such  is  a  theocracy ;  but 
their  case  was  singular. 

10.  Lastly.  Tests  have  occasioned  many  controversies.  A 
test  is  an  action,  or  declaration,  from  which  it  can  be  concluded 
that  a  man  is  a  member  of  the  established  church.  The  word 
may  mean  any  trial  or  criterion ;  and,  even  when  applied  to  es 
tablishments,  it  may  mean  an  evidence  given  by  any  person  that 
he  is  of  the  established  church  ;  but  it  most  usually  means  such 
an  evidence  when  given  by  one  who  is  about  to  take  upon  him 
self  some  authority.  The  general  intention  of  such  evidence 
has  been  mentioned  before7.  It  is  to  prevent  contentions  be- 

4  Warb.  Alliance,  p.  287.  change  the  doctrines.  It  might  ally  itself 

5  See  Warb.  Alliance,  p.  *2<?.  |    to  a  new  church. 

K  Our  state  has  no  right  to  make  the   j       7  Chap.  v.  sect,  (i,     Chap.  xii.  sect.  ;'>, 
king   Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  to 


438  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE  [III.  XIV.  10. 

tween  those  in  power,  arising  either  from  rivalships  about  II. 
worldly  grandeur,  or  from  presumption  that  a  certain  religion  is 
the  only  one  that  can  be  deemed  pure  and  perfect.  Tests  make 
a  part  of  the  plan  which  divides  the  religions  in  one  nation  into 
the  established  and  the  tolerated ;  and  they  contribute  to  the 
peace  aimed  at  by  that  plan,  though  they  occasion  some  murmur- 
ings  and  discontents.  They  give  security  to  church  and  state 
at  the  same  time;  for,  as  all  dissenters  make  a  common  cause, 
they  must  overturn  the  established  church  if  they  could  get  into 
power;  and,  if  they  overturned  the  church,  they  would  throw  146 
the  state  into  disorder.  It  must  be  better  for  the  state  to  have 
those  in  power  use  all  their  power  in  government,  than  to  have 
them  use  a  good  deal  of  it  in  trying  to  defeat  one  another.  The 
church  has  a  right  to  this  protection  from  inroads  of  enemies; 
and  indeed  the  discrimination  is  a  great  advantage  to  those 
amongst  dissenters  themselves  who  wish  chiefly  for  peace  and 
comfort. 

Numberless  objections  have  been  made  to  tests :  it  would 
carry  us  too  far  out  of  our  way  to  examine  them  all.  Tests  are 
not  to  be  considered  as  positive  good,  but  only  as  inconvenient 
means  of  preventing  great  evils :  if  we  look  forward  to  per 
fection,  we  must  conceive  them  abolished  before1  we  can  arrive 
at  it.  That  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  used,  while 
they  do  really  prevent  great  evils.  Bishop  Warburton  men 
tions  a  memorable  instance  of  a2  Popish  peer  of  England,  who 
ingenuously  owned  the  necessity  of  them. 

The  only  objection  I  shall  mention  is,  that  they  punish 
opinions  which  a  man  forms  involuntarily,  according  to  the  evi 
dence  before  him.  Now  I  own  that  no  one  ought  to  be  punished 
for  what  he  does  not  do  wilfully  ;  but  then  I  say,  that  tests  are 
not  punishments,  but  only  restraints^ — acts  of  self-defence. 
He  who  punishes  inflicts  evil  which  he  might  avoid  inflicting : 
he  who  restrains  inflicts  only  that  evil  which  is  necessary  in 
order  to  ward  off  the  danger.  Punishing  aims  at  deterring 
others;  restraint  does  not.  Punishment  implies4  crimes;  restraint 
only  mischiefs.  However  innocently  mischiefs  arise,  they  are  147 
to  be  restrained,  and  repelled.  Error  is  certainly  not  to  be 
punished,  but  the  mischief  arising  from  any  erroneous  opinion 
may  be  restrained5. 

1  See  before,  chap.  v.  sect.  1. 

2  Lord  Digby,  Alliance  p.  289.  Hume 
accounts  for  this,  partly  on  political  prin 
ciples. 


3  Warb.  All. Book  III.  chap.  iii. p. 302. 

4  Alliance,  p.  302. 

5  Leaving  churches  where  they  were 
(sect.  4)  cannot  be  punishing.     It  may 


III.  Xiv.  11.]  AS     INFLUENCING     RELIGION.  439 

II.  But  Dr.  Balguy's  explanation  of  tests  seems  well  worthy  of 
attention0.  They  are  only  evidence  to  shew  whether  a  person 
is  qualified  or  disqualified  for  an  office — capable  of  doing  the 
duties  of  it,  or  incapable.  A  Quaker  is  disqualified  from  being 
a  general.  By  his  religious  principles  he  is  incapable  of  doing 
military  duty  ;  before  therefore  he  is  admitted  to  that  office,  he 
is  asked  to  declare,  by  words  or  by  actions,  whether  he  is  quali 
fied  or  not.  It  is  no  punishment  to  exclude  a  man  from  an 
office  for  which  he  is  not  qualified — any  more  than  to  exclude 
a  man  from  preaching  to  a  very  large  congregation  because  his 
voice  is  so  weak  that  he  cannot  be  heard;  or  because  he  cannot 
speak  the  only  language  which  the  congregation  understands : 
or  to  exclude  a  blind  man  from  being  a  guide. 

The  only  difficulty  here  is,  to  see  how  every  one,  who  is  not 
of  the  established  church,  should  be  disqualified  for  every  office. 
Whoever  by  his  principles  would,  in  all  probability,  exercise  a 
considerable  part  of  his  authority,  otherwise  than  in  enforcing 
the  laws  of  the  state,  is  unfit  to  hold  that  authority ;  more 
especially  if  he  exerts  it  against  the  views  of  the  state.  Besides, 

148  in  the  case  supposed,  a  man  not  only  disqualifies  himself  by  his 
principles,  but  also  others,  whom  he  in  a  manner  obliges  to 
exert  power,  given  for  the  public  good,  in  opposition  to  him. 

11.  If  difficulty  should  arise  from  the  same  persons  com 
posing  two  societies,  it  must  be  recollected,  that  there  is  no  man 
who  has  not  very  frequently  occasion  to  act  in  different  capa 
cities.  The  father  may  be  a  general,  and  the  son  an  inferior 
officer  ;  nay,  the  son  might  be  the  commander,  and  the  father  the 
subaltern.  A  son  may  be  a  judge,  or  a  spiritual  pastor;  and  his 
father  a  criminal,  or  a  plaintiff,  or  a  parishioner.  And  a  number 
of  men  acting  socially  may  likewise  act  in  two  different  capacities 
— as  a,  family,  the  members  of  which  are  partners  in  commerce. 
Bishop  Warburton  shews7,  more  regularly,  that  two  such 


be  said,  indeed,  it  is  not  punishing  them 
as  religious,  but  it  is  as  politic  persons, 
as  citizens.  This  is  as  it  happens.  Ex 
clusion  from  offices  is  often  a  great  pri 
vilege  ;  heavy  fines  are  paid  to  avoid 
offices ;  and  dissenters  should  have  all 
advantages  as  well  as  disadvantages  of 
freedom  from  state  authority.  One  might 
conceive  a  rational  dissenter  to  make  an 
handsome  speech,  i  as  we  are  more  at 
leisure,  we  will  help  the  general  cause  of 
religion,'  &c.  &c. 
e  Charge  III.  p.  214. 


7  Warb.  All.  B.  II.  chap.  v.  The 
illustration  of  lord  and  rector  of  a  parish 
might  shew  how  naturally  temporal  and 
spiritual  power  might  combine  in  reform 
ing  men  and  keeping  them  in  order. 
This  combination  may  be  in  one  person  ; 
but,  if  the  alliance  be  made  by  two  dis 
tinct  persons,  it  is  one  which  seldom 
fails,  when  it  takes  place,  to  effect  a 
great  improvement  in  manners  ;  improve 
ment  continuing  for  several  generations. 
And  it  is  almost  the  only  method  of  re 
forming  a  country  parish. 


440  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE  [III.  xiv.  12. 

societies  as  church  and  state  have  really  two  wills,  and  can  con-  II. 
tract  with  each  other.  This  is  easy  to  be  conceived,  when  each 
is  represented  by  a  few ;  as  parliament  and  convocation  (if  we 
may  use  those  terms  as  general)  are  never  likely  to  be  the  same 
persons :  and  it  is  very  improbable  that  either  church  or  state 
should  act  otherwise  than  by  representation. 

12.  I  will  not  pursue  this  subject  farther.  Only  I  will 
observe,  that,  in  reading  controversy  on  it,  some  specious  argu 
ments  will  be  met  with,  wearing  a  general  form,  which  are  inap 
plicable  to  practice  in  any  known  state  of  things ;  so  clearly 
impracticable,  that  those  who  use  them  would  not  think  of  prac-  149 
tising  them  ; — I  mean,  not  universally  ;  but  only  just  so  far  as 
their  particular  views  or  prejudices  required.  Dr.  Balguy  has 
exposed  this  inconsistency  with  great  success1 :  and  it  is  apparent 
in  the  determinations  of  those  who  had  overturned  our  estab 
lished  Church,  on  principles  destructive  of  all  establishments,  in 
order  to  establish  their  own2. 

I  do  not  mean  to  accuse  any  one  of  wilful  inconsistency. 
Many  religious  persons  and  parties  deceive  themselves;  and 
some  allow,  and  some  half  allow,  of  pushing  a  weak  argument 
as  far  as  it  will  go :  but  it  is  proper  we  should  be  aware  of  the 
fact,  because  it  will  let  us  into  the  particular  extent  and  mean 
ing  of  many  general  expressions  and  arguments.  The  affecta 
tion  of  being  free  from  government  and  laws,  in  some  religious 
societies  and  assemblies,  is  one  thing,  which  shews  the  incon 
sistency  I  speak  of.  Quakers  are  supposed  (as  I  have  been 
told)  to  speak  without  order  or  rule,  though  the  speakers  sit 
upon  a  distinguished  bench.  An  eminent  preacher  tells  his 
hearers,  "  your  congregations  have  order,  but  no  authority*" 
I  fancy,  if  he  was  to  harangue  them  from  the  pulpit  in  the 
dress  of  a  Newmarket  jockey,  they  would  find  some  authority 
to  turn  him  out  of  the  ministry4.  The  mode  of  governing  need 
not  be  written  on  tables,  while  the  effects  of  it  are  unquestion 
able.  If  people  are  orderly  without  authority,  the  end  of  au-  150 
thority  is  answered  ;  but  such  people  are  unlike  what  we  have 

1  See  pp.  221,  27.3,  277,  278.     Black-  '   have  been  credibly  informed,  was  in  some 
stone,  4to,  vol.  iv.  p.  53.  way  punished  for  burning  a  cat  to  death 

2  See  Warb.  Alliance,  Postscript,  p.  6;  j   in  an  oven,  to  satisfy  his  wife,  who  fancied 
and  Alliance,  p.  288.  I   herself  bewitched  by  Mrs.  G.  of  the  same 

3  Mr.    Robinson   on   Tests,    Oct.  30,  town,  and  thought  nothing  but  such  a  sa- 
1/88,  at  Cambridge,  p.  12,  top.  crifice  of  a  cat  could  dispel  the  charm. 

4  At  a  town,  near  which   I  have  re-  I  think  Mr.  T.  was  of  the  same  class  of 
sided,  Mr.  T.  a  dissenting  minister,  as  I  dissenters  with  Mr.  Robinson. 


i 


III.  xiv.  13-15.]       AS    INFLUENCING    RELIGION. 


441 


II.  met  with  ;  and,  as  reasoning  such  as  the  present  is  built  upon 
experience,  we  cannot  reason  about  them.  We  have  seen  chil 
dren  obey  parents  in  a  free  and  unconstrained  manner;  but 
this  implies  very  great  authority,  instead  of  none  at  all. 

13.  Permit  me,  by  way  of  clearing  up  what  I  have  deli 
vered,  (perhaps  with  some  degree  of  embarrassment,)  to  read 
to  you  Bishop  Warburton*s  own  account  of  the  contents  of  his 
Alliance5 ;  and  that  part  of  Dr.  Balguy's  Sixth  Sermon  which0 
treats  of  the  effect  of  the  intervention  of  the  magistrate  on  re 
ligious  society ;   as  also  that  part  of  his  third  Charge7  which 
relates  to  freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  worship. 

14.  We  will  close  the  subject  by  a  few  remarks  on  Mr. 
Robinson's    "  Discourse  on   Sacramental    Tests,    delivered  at 
Cambridge,   Thursday,  October  30th,  1788,   at  a  general  meet 
ing  of  Deputies  of  the  Congregations  of  Protestant  Dissenters 
in  the  county  of  Cambridge8." 

15.  It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  take  a  short  review  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  theory  here  described  has  been  ob 
served  in  practice,  in  our  own  country. 

Heresy  was  once  considered  as  a  crime  worthy  of  death. 
151  The  writ  de  hceretico  comburendo  has  been  frequently  carried 
into  execution;  against  Papists  by  Protestants,  against  Protest 
ants  by  Papists,  and  by  Protestants  against  each  other.  Two 
Arians  suffered  under  it  in  the  time  of  James  the  First ;  and 
the  laws  authorizing  it  were  not  finally  repealed  till  the  29th 
of  Charles  the  Second.  The  idea  had  probably  been  taken  from 
the  Jewish  Law,  without  allowance  for  difference  of  circum 
stances9;  and,  considering  how  indefinite  the  notion  of  heresy 
was  left,  the  cruelty  of  the  punishment  was  great.  Under  the 
Mosaic  Law,  blasphemy,  &c.  were  definite :  under  the  English, 
any  thing  might  be  heresy  as  parties  changed.  Severe  punish 
ment  was  necessary  amongst  idolaters,  &c. — not  now. 

From  the  Reformation  to  the  Revolution  there  seems  to 
have  been  no  such  principle  as  letting  every  man  enjoy  his  own 
opinions,  and  worship  his  Maker  according  to  the  dictates  of 


5  Postscript  to  Alliance,  pp.  !!,  !!. 

«  Pp.  100—105.  7  Pp.  212—222. 

R  This  section  consisted  of  an  exami 
nation  of  Mr.  Robinson's  Discourse,  and 
of  the  authorities  to  which  he  referred; 
particularly  Scripture  and  the  works  of 
Augustin.  No  part  of  this  examination 
had  been  icrittcu^  except  some  short 


notes  on  the  margin  of  the  discourse. 
The  examination  took  up  at  least  two 
lectures,  of  an  hour  each.  I  had  the 
satisfaction  to  be  afterwards  informed 
that  it  had  answered  its  purpose.  Mr. 
Davy  of  C:iius  College  was  so  obliging 
as  to  give  me  his  approbation  in  writing. 
9  Of  this,  Book  I.  chap.  xi. 


442  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE  [III.  xiv.  15. 

his  own  judgment  and  conscience.  The  whole  design  was  to  II. 
make  Englishmen  of  one  religion ! ;  but,  to  say  nothing  of  illi 
terate  sects,  two  powerful  parties  counteracted,  as  far  as  they 
were  able,  this  design — the  Papists  and  the  Puritans.  The 
Papists  were  discontented  at  the  Reformation's  going  so  far  ; 
the  Puritans  were  very  zealous  to  carry  it  farther.  Yet  these 
two  parties  were  not  exactly  upon  the  same  footing :  the  Papists 
owned  a  foreign  power  superior  to  their  own  king ;  the  Puritans 
were  real  English  subjects,  and  beneficed  English  Protestant 
clergy,  though  they  held  that  the  king  ought  not  to  be  reckoned 
the  head  of  the  Church.  They  were  therefore  to  be  treated  in  a 
different  manner ;  and  the  difference  between  them  is  still  more 
striking  since  the  Revolution,  when  Puritans  were  tolerated,  152 
and  Papists  only  connived  at.  We  will  take  them  separately. 
First  of  Papists :  Queen  Elizabeth  endeavoured  at  first  to 
do  as  King  Edward  the  Sixth  had  done ;  to  influence  the  mi 
nisters  only;  to  enjoin  them  to  read  the  reformed  service,  and 
to  require  only  quietness  from  the  people :  but  the  popish  power 
engendering  plots  against  her,  she  was  obliged  to  oppose  it  by 
laws  growing  stricter  gradually.  And  this  is  a  general2  idea 
of  the  English  laws  against  popery  :  they  were  made  when 
attempts  were  made  to  restore  it ;  and,  when  those  attempts 
were  frustrated,  they  were  executed  more  and  more  remissly 
as  the  danger  grew  more  remote.  Queen  Elizabeth  did  not 
at  first  exclude  Papists  from  her  councils  ;  and  they  remained 
members  of  parliament  till  the  ,30th  of  Charles  the  Second. 
Attempts  to  restore  popery  have  been  but  little  discontinued. 
The  year  1745  is  within  the  memory  of  many  men ;  and,  since 
that  time,  it  has  seemed  worth  while  to  keep  an  account  of 
the  numbers  of  Papists,  and  of  the  conduct  of  their  priests; 
though  the  legislature  has  ventured  upon  some  relaxations3. 


1  I  suppose  all  Englishmen  had  l>ro> 
of  one  religion ;  and  probably  some  be 
came  Protestants  in  such  a  manner,  as  to 
raise  expectations  that  all  would  become 
so,  if  the  Protestant  religion  once  pre 
vailed. 

2  Gibson's  5th  Pastoral  Letter,  Post- 
script.     See  Contents  of  the  same. 

3  Since  June,  1791,  all  who  swear  to 
be  good  subjects,  that  is,  who  renounce 
the  pope's  supremacy  in   civil  matters, 
are  allowed  to  use  their  worship  publicly, 
to  keep  schools  for  Papists,  to  come  to 
court,  &c. ;  but  the  margin  of  the  Act  of 


Parliament,  taking  place  June  24,  1791, 
will  easily  supply  particulars.  Such  Pa 
pists  call  themselves  protesting  Catholics : 
about  1/00  of  them,  I  think,  petitioned 
parliament.  Blackstone  seems  to  have 
pointed  out  (B.  IV.  chap.  iv.  p.  54, 
quarto)  the  ground  on  which  this  liberty 
might  be  given.  In  Ireland,  Papists  can 
now  vote  for  members  of  the  house  of 
commons ;  can  be  members  of  the  uni 
versity  ;  can  be  advocates  at  the  bar : 
though  they  cannot  yet  be  members  of 
parliament,  or  judges,  or  officers  in  the 
army  or  navy. 


III.  Xiv.   15.]         AS    INFLUENCING    KELIGION.  443 

II.         With  regard  to  Protestant  dissenters,  as  the  Puritans  might 

153  be  called,  though   beneficed  in  the  Church  of  England — the 
general  view  was,  to  make  their  religion,   or  every  departure 
from  the  established  worship,    uneasy   to   them,  by  disabling 
them  from  doing  things,  which   others   might  do,   (practising 
law  and  physic  in  James  the  First,)  and  by  fining,  and  in  some 
cases  imprisoning  them.    And  their  behaviour  was  so  stiff  and 
ungracious,  that  the  sentiment  of  hatred  conspired  with  poli 
tical  prudence  (or  artifice)  against  them.     And  I  should  con 
ceive,  that  the  want  of  a  test  would,  by  increasing  their  power, 
embitter  their  zeal,  and  that  of  their  opponents.      Very  soon 
after  the  Restoration,  the  Act  of  Uniformity  took  place;  by 
which  all  ministers  who  were  not  ordained  in  our  manner,  or 
who  refused  to  use   our  service,   and    give  their  assent  to  it, 
were  deprived  of  their  benefices.    On  the  24th  of  August,  1662, 
(well  called  Black  Bartholomew)  not  less  than  20004  ministers 
lost  their  livings,  and  other  preferments ;   a  considerable  pro 
portion  of  them  men  of  ability  and  diligence  in  their  profession. 
It  is  shocking  and  mortifying  to  think  that  safety  to  the  Church 
could  not,  or  seemed   as  if  it  could  not,  be  purchased  at  an 
easier  rate  ! 

At  the  Revolution,  however,  it  was  intended  to  give  all 
Protestants  full  liberty,  with  regard  to  religion,  though  the 
liberality  of  the  king's  designs  got  narrowed  by  parliament  and 
convocation ;  but  what  would  then  be  liberty,  to  the  chief  part 
of  dissenters,  is  not  so  now.  They  did  not  object  to  the  doc 
trine5  of  the  Trinity  ;  whereas  Socinians  are  now  considerable 
in  numbers  and  literature.  The  Toleration  Act,  though  it  gives 

154  up  the  contested  points  about  ceremonies,  forms  of  church-go 
vernment,  and  even  about  infant  baptism,  and  oaths  to  those 
who  have  scruples,   yet  gives  up  nothing  with  regard  to  the 
Trinity — not  having  occasion  to  give  up  any  thing  ;   and,  as 
qualifying  according   to  that   act,    that  is,    taking  oaths  and 
making  declarations,  is  necessary  in  order  to  have  the  benefit 
of  it,  the  Socinians  are,  in  strictness,  as  if  the  Toleration  Act 
had  not  been  made.      So  I   understand  the  matter.      At  least, 
they  were  so  till  the  present  reign.      In  1792,  Mr.  Fox  moved 
the  commons  to  give  relief  in  the  matter  of  assenting  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  they  refused. 

The  principal  thing  aimed  at  by  Protestant  dissenters  is 


4  Hume,  Neal,  &c. 

5  See  first  15  Articles  as  modified  by 


the    Assembly   in    1U43.     They  are   in 
Neal,  Appendix. 


444  THE    CIVIL    MAGISTRATE,    &C.          [III.  xiv.  15. 

the  repeal  of  the  Corporation  and   Test  Acts ;   and  their  at-  II. 
tempts  being  with  a  view  to  temporal  advantages,  and  influence 
in  the  state,  will  of  course  cause  a  jealousy  in  the  magistrate. 
When  they  shew  no  desire  of  having  their  own  sects  powerful 
in  politics,  then  they  will  have  every  possible  relief. 

The  Corporation1  and  Test"  Acts  of  Charles  the  Second 
continue  in  force.  It  seems  likely  that,  if  they  had  not  been 
thought  necessary,  they  would  have  been  repealed  at  the  Revo 
lution.  The  immediate  occasions  of  them  may  be  now  extinct, 
and  yet  the  general  principles  of  them  may  make  them  fit  for 
other  occasions.  The  first,  forbidding  all  but  members  of  the 
established  Church  to  hold  any  office  in  the  government  of 
any  city  or  corporation,  was  necessary  to  dispossess  of  power 
—  of  power  particularly  of  electing  members  of  parliament — 
those  who  were  disaffected  to  government  at  the  Restoration, 
and  who  had  before  excluded  all  but  those  of  their  own  prin 
ciples.  The  second,  forbidding  all  but  members  of  the  esta 
blished  Church  to  hold  any  office,  civil  or  military,  M^as  neces 
sary  in  order  to  prevent  Charles  the  Se'cond  from  dispensing  155 
with  law  by  his  proclamation,  and  granting  indulgence  to  the 
Papists.  These  two  laws  now  join  in  keeping  all,  who  are 
not  of  the  established  Church,  out  of  power ;  in  corporations 
(as  having  an  effect  on  the  legislature)  and  in  the  executive 
government.  How  far  they  are  capable  of  extension  or  relax 
ation,  or  of  alteration  as  to  the  mode,  is  a  question  of  import 
ance,  and  of  difficulty.  A  man  is  deemed  a  member  of  the 
Church  of  England  who  takes  the  sacrament  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  declares  against  Tran- 
substantiation  ;  from  whence  the  tests  are  called  sacramental 
tests.  According  to  the  Corporation  Act,  a  man  must  already 
have  shewn  himself  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England;  ac 
cording  to  the  Test  Act,  he  must  shew  himself  such  within  six 
months  after  his  appointment.  The  Test  Act  was  made  twelve 
years  after  the  Corporation  Act.  Many  persons  of  eminence 
seem  to  wish  that  some  who  are  now  dissenters  could  be  em 
ployed  in  the  service  of  government ;  and  something  has  been 
done  in  the  present  reign.  What  expedients  should  be  adopted, 
may  be  thought  the  business  of  a  statesman,  rather  than  of  a 
churchman,  to  determine.  Were  I  to  hazard  a  proposal,  it 
should  be,  that  the  Church  should  be  enlarged,  and  the  execu 
tive  government  still  confined  to  that  Church  ;  with  the  most 
1  A.  r>.  1001.  13  Charles  II.  st.  2.  c.  i.  -  2»  Ch.  II.  c.  L>. 


III.  XV.  1,  2.]       IMPROVEMENT    OF   RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.         445 

II.  perfect  toleration  to  opinions  and  worship  that  could  be  given. 
But  deliberations  of  councils  must  be  wanted  to  settle  such 
weighty  matters  as  these ;  and  even  their  decisions  should  be 
executed  at  first  only  in  the  way  of  trying  experiments.  Some 
eminent  dissenters  neither  wish  for  an  enlargement,  or  what  is 
called  a  comprehension* ',  nor  think  it  practicable. 


J5C  CHAPTER    XV. 

OF    IMPROVING     RELIGIOUS     SOCIETIES. 

1.  WE  shall  now  bring  our  reflections  on  the  nature  of 
religious  society  to  a  conclusion,  by  considering  how  such  so 
ciety  may  be  put  into  a  train  of  perpetual  improvement:  how 
it  may  be  made,  though  always  imperfect,  to  approach  conti 
nually  nearer  and  nearer  to  perfection.  That  all  human  in 
stitutions  admit  of  improvement,  will  scarce  be  disputed.  The 
progress  of  experience  in  learning  duties  was  traced  out  in  the 
h'rst  Book4 ;  and  sometimes  improvements  must  be  reckoned 
as  beginning  from  some  corrupt  state  of  things.  We  need  not 
make  any  elaborate  proof  of  our  present  assertion  :  we  need 
here  only  recollect  how  far  religious  societies,  even  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  are  of  human*  institution ;  and  express 
a  caution,  that  every  change  be  not  considered  as  an  improve 
ment.  There  are  always  men  to  be  found  who  are  impatient 
under  old  institutions,  and  desirous  of  new,  without  any  reason: 
through  caprice,  or  unbounded  love  of  novelty  ;  or  through  a 
desire  of  distinguishing  themselves,  and  of  being  lawgivers, 
original  thinkers,  leaders  of  parties,  &c.  Men  of  this  turn 
rush  into  change,  ignorant  and  thoughtless, — without  mature 
deliberation,  without  insight  into  the  nature  of  man,  or  tlfe 
interests  of  society.  We  would  not  be  thought  to  speak  of  any 
improvement  but  such  as  moderate  men,  of  judgment  and  in 
formation,  have  agreed  to  adopt ;  have  agreed  for  a  consider 
able  time. 

157         2.      When  such  an  improvement  is  in  view,  the  first  and 
most  obvious  method  is  to  adopt  it  openly  and  expressly.      If 


3  The  best  proposal  for  a  comprehen 
sion  seems  to  have  been  that  of  11589;  in 
which  Tillotson,  Scot,  Sharp,  Compton, 
Stillingfleet,  Beveridge,  were  engaged; 


and   Burnet,  &.c.  .  Convocation  stopped 


u. 


4  Chap.  xix.  sect.  !'. 
"'  Cli;i]>.  xi.  scot.  II. 


446  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.  3,  4. 

this  can  be  done,  all  is  right:  it  is  certainly  the  best  and  most  II 
desirable  method,  on  many  accounts.  It  requires  no  explana 
tions,  and  is  liable  to  no  charges  of  sophistry  ;  but  alas  !  it  is 
seldom  that  this  method  will  succeed  in  practice.  The  obsta 
cles  to  it  have  been  already1  described.  Nevertheless,  when 
ever  it  appeared  at  all  probable  that  it  could  succeed  in  any 
degree,  it  might  be  prudent  to  have  a  perpetual  committee, 
empowered  to  examine  all  pretensions  to  improvement;  and 
adopt  such  as  appeared  reasonable  on  mature  deliberation,  and 
could  be  adopted  without  disturbance  and  confusion. 

3.  When  express  improvements,  or  reformations,   (for  a 
number  of  improvements  make  a  reformation,)  cannot  be  adopt 
ed,  the  best  way  is  to  make  some  alterations  tacitly.     This  may 
be  carried  to  a  great  length,  as  appeared  in  Chap.  vi.      What 
we  now  wish  to  observe  is,  that  tacit  reformations  serve  very 
well  to  prepare  the  mind  for  such  as  are  express.      For,  when 
these  have  continued  for  a  while,  prejudices  and  attachments 
will  be  weakened,  the  inconveniences  which  are  to  be  remedied 
will  be  more  sensibly  felt,   and  more  openly  acknowledged : 
though  laws  are  violated,  yet  the  violation  will  excite  less  and 
less  resentment.      Improvements,  when  they  have  continued  in 
sight  for  a  length  of  time,  will  come  to  be  desired,  and  assume 
a  pleasing  appearance.      How  long  this  state  of  things  must 
continue,  will  depend  upon  particular  circumstances.   If  persons 
of  reflection  and  weight  grow  uneasy  under  it,  hazards  must  be 
run  to  make  the  reformation  express.     We  before  referred  to 
the  chapter  of  the  Spirit2  of  Laws  ;   which  treats  of  preparing  158 
mens  minds  for  any  laws  which  they  are  to  receive. 

4.  That  we  here  go  on  in  a  right  train,  seems  to  be  con 
firmed  by  Dr.  Balguy^s  Heads  of  Lectures  concerning  society 
in  general,  one  of  which  was  quoted  before 3. 

"  10.  The  obligation  men  are  under  of  contributing  their 
endeavours  for  the  improvement  of  the  laws  under  which  they 
live;  and  the  establishment  of  the  whole  system  of  the  laws  of 
nature." 

"  11.  The  obligation  men  are  under  of  supplying  the  de 
fects  and  correcting  the  errors  of  established  laws,  whilst  the 
laws  themselves  continue  in  force" 

These  two  heads  being  about  society  in  general,  are  as 
much  applicable  to  ecclesiastical  society  as  to  any  other.  The 
former  corresponds  to  express,  the  latter  to  tacit  reformations. 

1  Chap.  vi.  -  Book  XIX.  ch.  ii.  y  Chap.  vi.  sect.  fi. 


III.  XV.  5.]  RELIGIOUS     SOCIETIES.  44^ 

II.  As  many  if  not  all  improvements  must  interfere  with  some 
rights,  or  rather,  with  some  established  privileges  considered 
as  rights,  it  seems  needful  to  obviate  any  difficulty  which  may 
arise  from  the  infringement  of  these.  For  this  purpose,  it  should 
be  considered  in  general,  that,  whenever  there  is  good  evidence 
that  a  thing  ought  to  have  been  done  formerly,  that  thing  ought 
to  be  done  now,  on  producing  such  evidence ;  otherwise  (as  was 
said  with  regard  to  the  civil4  compact,  &c.)  advantage  is  taken 
of  men's  ignorance,  which  cannot  be  for  the  general  good. 
Whatever  would  have  been  done,  had  men  known  their  own  in 
terests,  ought  to  be  considered  as  having  been  done,  when  they 
come  to  know  them.  Sometimes  this  may  seem  to  be  contradict 
ed,  when  it  is  not  in  reality  ;  and  possibly  it  may  in  some  cases 
want  defining  and  limiting :  for,  though  it  be  generally  true, 

j.\9  that  if  a  thing  ought  to  have  been  yours,  had  all  circumstances 
been  known,  then,  when  they  come  to  be  known,  it  is  yours  ; 
yet,  in  the  mean  time,  something  may  have  happened  to  impair 
your  title.  It  may  be  thrown  into  the  sea,  or  consumed;  or  so 
much  labour  and  expence  may  have  been  bestowed  upon  it  by 
the  possessor,  that,  by  some  other  rule,  it  ought  not  to  be 
yours5.  In  the  case  before  us,  when  any  undeniable  improve 
ment  appears,  something  appears  which  ought  to  have  been  done 
sooner;  therefore  that  ought  to  be  done  now;  and,  though 
some  steps  may  have  innocently  been  taken  bond  fide,  which 
may  reasonably  obstruct  the  adopting  of  the  improvement,  at 
least  for  a  time,  yet  the  general  consideration  ought  to  make 
men  more  ready  to  suffer  inconvenience  for  the  sake  of  forward 
ing  such  improvement — more  ready  to  give  up  what  they  have 
been  used  to  call  their  rights. 

Our  Saviour  had  a  notion  of  the  evil  usually  attending  reli 
gious  improvements,  when  he  said,  that  he  came  not  to  bring 
peace,  but  a  sword;  to  divide  families,  and  set  near  relations 
against  each  other6. 

5.  If  it  were  settled  that  a  reformation  ought  to  be  made, 
it  would  be  natural  to  ask,  by  whom  ?  I  should  answer,  from 

4  Chap.  xiv.  sect.  5.  |  ing  that  road:  the   innkeeper  loses    his 

5  In  our  Cambridge  Paving  Act  (which  |  custom,  but  is  he  injured?    No  agree- 
is  owned  to  be  an  improvement)  short  j  ment,  express  or  tacit,  seems  to  justify 
possession  is   overruled;   but  long  pos-  such  a  notion :  he  is  indeed  unjoi •titnnn\ 
session  (of  seven  years)  is  allowed,  and  :  and,  by  a  liberal  and  generous  nation, 
compensation  made  for  violating  it.  '  may  be  relieved  as  such  ;  but  he  tonk  hi> 

A  man   builds   an   inn   next  a  great       chance, 
road;  a  great  advantage  is  seen  in  turn-   i       6  Matt.  x.  34,  30. 


448  IMPROVEMENT     OF  [III.  XV.  5. 

the  l second  book,  philosophers  are  to  make  improvements:  the  II. 
people  are  always  to  be  under  establishments.      Who  then,  in 
the  present  case,  are  philosophers  ?  Those  who  are  enabled,  by 
education  and  leisure,  to  examine  into  the  grounds  of  religion.   160 
Are  teachers  (or  clergymen)   to  be  reckoned  in  the  number  ? 
their  proper  business  is  to  teach  established  doctrines  to  the 
people.     True  ;   and  if  a  set  of  philosophers  can  be  found  who 
are  not  by  profession  teachers,  let  them  make  the  improvements. 
In  fact,  this  cannot  be  expected,  (though  such  may  be  found  to 
help),  and  therefore  as  teachers,  in  order  to  instruct  the  people, 
must  examine  grounds  of  religion,   and  are  naturally  led  to 
think  more  deeply  than  the  generality,  they  must  have  some 
concern.  The  business  will  be,  to  keep  the  characters  of  teacher 
and  reformer  as  distinct  as  possible.      There  will  be  2  a  time 
to  teach,  and  a  time  to  reform  ;   a  place  or  a  company  proper 
for  one,  and  improper  for  the  other3.     And  the  more  discretion 
will  be  requisite;  as  an  improvement,  admitted  amongst  philo 
sophers,  should  be  imparted  to  the  more  improved  first,  and 
should  afterwards  descend  gradually  to  the  less  improved,  and 
so  finally  to  the  people.    As  any  principles  are  better  than  none, 
no  one  should  have  his  old  principles  taken  away,  when  that  is 
practicable,  till  he  is  prepared  to  receive  the  new4  ones  in  their 
room.     How  different  is  this  from  the  conduct  of  teachers,  who, 
in  spite  of  every  obligation  of  honesty  and  fidelity,  unsettle,  in 
the  most  open  and  abrupt  way,  the  established  principles  of  the 
lowest  of  the  people  ! 

But  here  it  may  be  urged,  did  not  our  reformers,  eminently 
so  called,  do  the  same  ?  were  not  they  ministers  of  the  Romish 
Church  when  they  preached  against  the  corruptions  of  popery? 
Let  us  say  they  were;  as  it  might  be  difficult  to  settle  precisely 
how  far  some  of  them  might  have  relinquished  virtually  the  J(> 
ministry.  Was  not  Zuinglius  a  Romish  minister  when  he 
preached  at  Zurich  ?  as  mentioned  before5.  Let  us  say  he  was 

whatever  effect  the  encouragement  of  the  senate  might  have". 

In  such  conduct  there  was  an  irregularity;  and  certainly  our 
Reformation  was  attended  with  a  great  deal  of  unnecessary  mis- 

1  Chap.  iv.  sect.  2.  4  Book  I.  chap.  xix.  sect.  11. 

2  Book  II.  chap.  iv.  sect.  4.  5  Chap.  vi.  sect.  6. 

3  If  a  judge  wanted  to  reform  penal  j       c  The  state,  which  might  ally  it 
laws  by  abolishing  capital  punishments,  j   any  church,  had  begun  to  ally  itself  with 
he  would  continue  to  pass  sentence  of  I   a  Protestant  church.     Moreover,  the  re- 
death  till  he  had  convinced  the  legis-  formers  were  open,  sincere,  free  from  dis- 
]ature>  simulation  and  duplicity. 


III.  XV.  6.]  RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.  449 

II.  chief:  owing,  probably,  to  a  neglect  of  the  discretion  here  re 
commended.  But  to  whom  was  the  fault  to  be  imputed  ?  To 
those  who  made  such  irregularity  necessary  for  the  promoting 
of  truth.  Had  the  reformers  been  allowed  to  deliver  their  sen 
timents  with  a  decent  plainness,  only  by  giving  up  the  emolu 
ments  of  the  established  Church,  I  should  have  held  them  very 
blamable  if  they  had  acted  as  they  did  ;  that  is,  had  they  not 
quitted  all  connection  with  the  Romish  Church  before  they 
preached  against  it.  And,  whenever  toleration  prevails,  whe 
ther  in  theory  or  only  in  practice,  I  hold  every  man  extremely 
blamable  who  keeps  possession  of  any  emolument,  which  he  could 
not  have  without  being  a  member  of  a  certain  church,  at  the 
same  time  that  he  preaches  to  the  people  against  that  church. 

6.  It  is  in  vain  to  think  of  reforming,  except  we  begin  the 
work  in  right  temper.  We  ought  to  have  a  strong  love  for 
truth  and  virtue ;  a  strong  sense  of  the  importance  of  religion 
— of  the  general  and  fundamental  parts  of  religion,  as  opposed 
to  those  parts  about  which  disputes  have  usually  arisen.  Our 
minds  ought  to  be  in  a  state  of  calmness  and  moderation ;  cau 
tious  and  diffident ;  not  hasty  or  presumptuous  in  forming  our 

162  own  judgment;  candid  and  respectful  in  estimating  the  judg 
ments  of  others.  The  qualities  of  the  good  controversialist,  as 
described  in  the  second7  Book,  would  be  qualities  of  a  good  re 
former.  Indeed,  it  is  not  easy  to  describe  the  previous  dispo 
sition  of  a  good  reformer  better  than  it  is  described  in  the  beau 
tiful  passage  of  Augustin,  before8  recommended.  Only  this 
may  be  a  proper  place  for  an  account  of  the  religious  fault  call 
ed  bigotry.  "Bigotry,"  says  Mr.  Travis,  "may  be  defined  to 
be  a  perverse  adherence  to  any  opinion  of  any  kind,  without 
giving  to  the  evidence  on  the  contrary  part  an  open  hearing,  and 
a  candid  judgment9."  In  religion,  this  "perverse  adherence" 
will  be  generally  attended  by  a  principle  of  using  means  of  de 
fence  not  allowed  to  others.  That  we  ought  not  to  do  any 
thing  in  promoting  our  own  opinions,  which  we  will  not  allow 
our  adversaries  to  do  in  promoting  theirs,  is  evident  enough  in 
itself;  but  men,  heated  by  zeal  for  what  they  take  for  granted 
is  truth,  are  perpetually  doing  unfair  things,  contrary  to  all 
rules  of  liberal  and  equitable  contention.  Their  holy  vehemence 
makes  them  deceive  themselves  ;  and  requires  that  they  should 
be  reasoned  with,  in  cases  otherwise  too  plain  to  admit  of  rca- 

7  Chap.  ii.  and  v.  j       !1  First  Letter  to  Mr.  Gibbon,  p.  15, 

8  End  of  chap.  x.  |    Ovo,  1/I55. 

VOL.  I.  29 


450 


IMPROVEMENT    OF 


[III.  xv.  6. 


soning1.      If  a  member  of  an  established  religion  had  our  right  II. 
disposition,  he  would  say,  "  It  may  be,  no  doubt,  that  my  reli 
gion  wants  improvement ;  at  present,  I  see  no  other  religion  for 
which  I  ought  to  change  it,  all  things  considered ;  but  I  am 
very  willing  that  all  men  should  believe  as  they  can,  and  wor 
ship  as  they  please ;   and  should  express  their  objections  to  my 
religion  with  a  decent  plainness.    I  will  pay  them  attention,  and 
will  endeavour  to  improve  and  profit  by  them.     Only  let  us  not  163 
set  about  improvement  rashly :  let  us  not  treat  with  a  boyish 
flippancy  all  who  have  gone  before  us;  let  us  allow  them  as 
much  wisdom  and  integrity  as  ourselves,  though,  in  some  arbi 
trary  customs  of  inferior  moment,  they  may  seem  out  of  fashion. 
With  regard  to  the  temporal  benefits  attending  any  particular 
religious  community,  I  look  upon  them  as  accidental.      I  wish 
to  exclude  no  man  from  the  advantages  which  I  happen  to  pos 
sess.    I  desire  no  laws  to  be  made  but  such  as  are  necessary  for 
the  public  safety ;  and  such  as  I  should  be  willing  to  allow  if 
my  religion  should  come  to  be  tolerated,  instead  of  being  esta 
blished  ;  a  thing  which,  at   any  time,  may  very  soon  happen. 
This  I  say,  because  those  who  are  only  tolerated  always  consi 
der  themselves  as  proposing  necessary  improvements" 

A  rational  dissenter  would  say,  'I  wish  I  could  be  a  mem 
ber  of  the  national  religion.  I  endeavour  to  reconcile  myself  to 
it,  but  conscience  forbids  my  compliance.  I  know  in  this  case 
what  political  prudence  requires2,  and  I  cheerfully  submit. 
Every  station  hath  in  it  something  peculiarly  good  :  I  must  con 
sider  how  I  can  improve  mine  to  the  greatest  advantage.  I  am 
free  from  temptations  to  luxury,  and  from  secular  cares  ;  as 
well  as  from  the  calls  of  custom  to  the  more  frivolous  kinds  of 
intercourse  with  what  is  called  the  world :  let  me  employ  my 
leisure  in  the  pursuit  of  religious  knowledge ;  so  may  I  profit, 
not  only  myself,  but  all  my  Christian  brethren.3  This  will  be 
most  likely  also  to  bring  me  a  contented  mind.  That  there  is  l6l 


1  Book  II.  chap.  ii.  sect.  10. 

2  As  in  the  case  of  Lord  Digby,  chap, 
xiv.  sect.  10. 

3  Dr.  Lardner,  Dr.  Taylor,  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge  could  not  well  have  done  so  much 
service  to  Christianity  as  they  have  done, 
if  they  had  had  all  the  avocations  of  the 
established  clergy.     That  enjoyment  of 
leisure,  for  religious  purposes,  has  been  a 
thing  really  aimed  at,  appears  from  the 
conduct  of  some  of  the  Romish  clergy, 


who    have   voluntarily  secluded    them 
selves  from  secular  cares. 

That  so  much  good  has  arisen  either 
from  voluntary  or  involuntary  seclusion, 
is  no  excuse  for  any  abuse  of  patronage. 
The  worst  of  men  cannot  prevent  inci 
dental  good  from  arising  out  of  their 
iniquity.  That  good  can  be  no  excuse  to 
them ;  it  is  the  immediate  effect,  and  the 
irrefragable  proof,  of  the  superintendence 
of  a  benevolent  Deity. 


III.   XV.  7,  8.]  RELIGIOUS     SOCIETIES.  451 

II.  a  future  state,  I  must  assure  myself;  otherwise  all  my  objec 
tions  and  difficulties  are  vain,  and  the  whole  business  of  different 
religions  is  vain :  and,  if  there  is,  how  shall  I  ever  know  that 
any  condition  can  be  better  for  me  than  that  in  which  Providence 
has  been  pleased  to  place  me  ?  I  am  neither  in  affluence,  nor  in 
want;  God  has  given  me  neither  poverty  nor  riches,  but  he  feeds 
me  with  food  convenient  for  me :  if  I  murmur,  it  must  be  be 
cause  I  prefer  a  turbulent  passage  through  this  life,  to  one 
during  which  I  can  keep  my  attention  fixed  without  distraction 
on  a  blessed  immortality.'1 

7-  The  mind,  thus  opened  and  awake  to  improvement, 
would  soon  discern  the  particulars  of  which  such  improvement 
would  consist.  Those  who  were  rightly  disposed  must  not 
give  themselves  up  to  any  visionary  schemes,  but  must  study 
human  nature;  and  not  even  that  in  a  manner  merely  specula 
tive,  but  by  facts  and  experiments.  They  must  cultivate  the 
understanding  with  a  particular  view  to  religion  ;  must  refine 
and  regulate  the  imagination ;  must  prune  away  all  the  luxu 
riances  of  devout  affections;  and  lastly,  must  form  systems  of 
wholesome  discipline  and  edifying  ceremonies. 

Let  us  consider  these  things  separately. 

8.  First,  as  to  an  experimental  knowledge  of  human  na- 
165  ture1.  The  end  and  purpose  here  in  view  must  be  success; 
which  will  depend  on  knowing  well  the  grounds  of  probability; 
and  we  can  only  tell  what  is  probable  for  the  future  by  knowing 
what  has  happened  in  time  past.  Yet  the  result  of  our  experi 
ments  may  be  so  arranged  as  to  make  a  kind  of  theory5 ;  which 
may  relate  to  the  general  nature  of  man,  that  is,  to  all  men,  in 
all  states  and  situations  ;  or  to  his  principles  of  action,  propen 
sities,  tendencies,  in  particular  circumstances.  We  shall  be 
more  likely  to  be  successful  in  promoting  and  improving  religion, 
as  we  get  to  understand  more  clearly  what  are  the  component 
parts  of  the  human  constitution — understanding,  will,  passions, 
imagination,  conscience; — what  subordination  Nature  intended 
to  institute  amongst  these ;  which  are  most  apt  to  prevail  in  the 
undisciplined  mind  :  what  are  the  powers  or  faculties  of  the 
body;  what  strength  and  refinement  they  are  susceptible  of; 
what  is  the  nature  of  the  connection  between  the  bodily  and  the 
menial  faculties,  and  how  one  affects  the  other :  what  are  the 
sources  of  human  happiness;  what  kinds  of  happiness  are  the 

4  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  170,  top. 

s  The  theory  of  hydrostatic*  is  reasoning  on  experiments. 

29 — 2 


452  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.  8. 

most  valuable  in  an  improved  state ;  what  are  the  most  attrac-  IT. 
tive  in  an  unimproved  state  :  how  the  attraction  will  grow  more 
powerful,  as  the  distance  grows  less  :  in  what  way  any  powerful 
attraction  or  repulsion  is  to  be  overcome :  how  mental  pleasures 
are  to  be  made  to  prevail  over  sensual,  and  benevolence  over 
self-love: — how  prejudices  are  to  be  weakened,  and  how  they 
and  all  kinds  of  habits  are  to  be  unsettled  and  removed,  and 
new  ones  formed  in  their  place: — how  men  are  to  be  made  to 
love  instruction  and  reproof,  and  to  acquire  a  relish  for  order 
and  decency  : — how  they  are  to  be  prevailed  upon  to  encounter 
a  present  evil,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  a  greater  at  a  distance ; 
to  face  danger  and  persecution;  to  bear  ridicule,  overcome  sloth  166 
and  indolence,  and  persevere  in  duty,  when  it  is  irksome,  or  in 
sipid. 

At  any  particular  juncture,  we  shall  be  more  likely  to  be 
successful  in  promoting  and  improving  religion,  if  we  are  very 
accurate  in  observing  wherein  peculiarities  of  situation  consist ; 
so  as  not  to  think  that  common  to  all  men,  which  is  peculiar  to 
a  few :  and  if  we  know  how  to  apply  our  general  knowledge  to 
each  particular  instance,  in  that  degree,  and  with  those  varia 
tions,  which  it  may  chance  to  require.  To  do  this,  we  must  in 
quire  how  men  would  be  influenced  by  different  means,  as  they 
differ  in  civilization,  and  of  consequence  in  education,  bodily 
and  mental ;  in  strength,  health,  activity,  exercises,  diet ;  in 
habitual  notions,  received  traditions,  ruling  passions ;  in  what 
is  called  taste,  fancy,  inclination,  temper ;  in  established  virtues 
and  vices1 ;  in  climate  ;  in  forms  of  government,  civil  and  reli 
gious  ;  in  customs  merely  arbitrary,  and  not  to  be  thoroughly 
accounted  for,  or  reduced  to  any  class. 

If  we  were  possessed  of  powers  to  treat  men  with  peculiar 
propriety  in  all  these  particular  varieties  of  situation,  we  should 
avoid  many  hurtful  mistakes  and  useless  expedients.  We  should 
never  confound  the  treatment  proper  for  the  savage  and  the  civi 
lized  ;  for  the  hardy  and  effeminate ;  for  the  ignorant  and  the 
learned ;  for  the  temperate  and  the  luxurious  ;  for  the  mild  and 
the  irascible ;  for  the  avaricious  and  the  profuse  ;  for  the  peace 
able  and  the  warlike;  for  the  orderly  and  the  irregular;  for  the 
subject  of  a  republic  and  of  a  despotic  government;  for  the 
member  of  an  episcopal  church  and  the  Presbyterian.  We 
should  steer  between  unthinking  confidence  in  a  good  cause,  and 
scrupulous  or  mean  timidity  about  surmountable  difficulties.  167 

1  Appendix  to  Book  I.  sect.  11. 


III.  xv. 


RELIGIOUS     SOCIETIES. 


453 


II.  We  should  attend  not  only  to  sets  of  men  collectively,  but  study 
the  minutiae  of  character  in  separate  individuals,  especially  when 
any  one  seemed  likely  to  influence  a  number.  And  we  should 
carry  on  our  attention  beyond  the  general  good  conduct  of  those 
whom  we  attempted  to  influence  in  the  first  place,  to  the  parti 
cular  circumstances  of  those  towards  whom  they  were  to  perform 
duties. 

The  Scriptures  are  by  no  means  averse  to  such  prudence,  as 
has  now  been  described.  Every  precept  of  holy  writ  about 
preaching  sacred  truth  is  adapted  to  particular  circumstances. 
The  twelve  Apostles  were  to  be  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as 
doves,  because  they  were  sent  forth  in  the  midst  of  wolves2. 
Our  Saviour  said  to  his  disciples,  when  he  was  comforting  them 
on  the  prospect  of  his  departure,3  "I  have  yet  many  things  to 
say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now."  St.  Paul  calls 
the  Corinthians  "babes  in  Christ1;"  adding,  "I  have  fed  you 
with  milk,  and  not  with  meat ;  for  hitherto  ye  were  not  able  to 
bear  it,  neither  yet  now  are  ye  able."  We  are  told,  not  to  give 
"  that  which5  is  holy  to  the  dogs,  nor  cast  our  "  pearls  before 
swine;"  and  that  from  prudential  motives,  relating  to  our 
selves.  What  can  be  more  truly  discreet  than  the  specimens  of 
conveying  unwelcome  truths,  given  us  in  the  beautiful  parables 
of  the  ewe  lamb,  and  the  good  Samaritan0?  Yet,  on  some 
occasions,  we  are  to  "rebuke  sharply7;"  and  John  the  Baptist, 
when  the  occasion  required  that  he  should  rouse  men  to  a  sense 
of  their  duty,  exclaims,  "O  generation  of  vipers  !  who  hath 
warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come8  P" 

168  9.  Moreover,  if  we  wish  to  make  improvements  in  religion, 
we  must  cultivate  our  understandings  with  a  particular  view  to 
it.  That  we  must  enrich  them  with  a  knowledge  of  languages, 
history,  and  antiquities,  has  been  fully  shewn  in  the  first  book. 
We  may  add,  that  we  should  endeavour  to  simplify  our  ideas, 
so  as  to  admit  nothing  confused  or  indistinct  into  our  reason 
ings :  we  should  have,  to  use  Dr.  Balguy's  words,  "a  clear 
head*,  unembarrassed  by  scholastic  terms.'1''  Something  of  this 
sort  was  recommended  in  the  10th  chapter.  We  ought  to  see 
the  real  meaning  of  words  which  we  use  commonly  and  habit 
ually — that  confined  meaning,  which  is  so  much  more  narrow 


-  Matt.  x.  1«.  3  John  xvi.  12. 

4  1  Cor.  iii.  1.  •"'  Matt.  vii.  »!. 

i;  Luke  x.  30.     2  Sam.  xii.  1. 
7  Titus  i.  13.  ii.  15.         8  Matt.  iii.  7. 


9  Charge  2d,  or  p.  103.  This  might  be 
a  proper  place  for  some  account  of  the 
Jfnti-hiiixtm'Miis;  see  Dr.  Balguy,  Charge 
l.P.  171, 


454  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.  9. 

than  the  words  seem  at  first  to  convey.     We  ought  not  to  be  IT. 
carried  away  by  sounds ;  so  as,   when  we  hear  mention  of  the 
Son  of  God,  or  of  a  Person  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  to  fancy  we 
know  as  much  as  when  the   same  terms  Son  and  Person  are 
used  in   common  life. 

It  will  tend  also  much  to  improvement  of  real  knowledge,  if, 
in  our  investigation  of  it,  we  study  things  and  facts  with  sim 
plicity  ;  so  as  never  to  conclude  more  from  them  than  we  are  * 
sure  of.  And  we  should  follow  the  same  plan  in  reading  the 
Scriptures.  We  should  read  them  without  superstitious  or  en 
thusiastic  emotions;  without  raising  fanciful  notions  out  of 
plain  words  ;  we  should  read  them  as  we  would  read  any  thing 
written  in  mere  popular  language. 

But  one  thing  should  be  still  farther  suggested,  though  it  is 
not  certain  that  more  can  be  derived  from  it  than  caution  and 
discretion.  A  man,  who  thinks  on  a  subject  of  religion,  may 
get  into  a  train  of  notions  and  conclusions;  go  from  one  to  ano-  169 
ther,  without  any  thing  which  can  be  called  false  reasoning,  and 
find  nothing  to  stop  him :  he  may  do  the  same  in  thinking  on 
another  subject;  and  yet  these  trains  of  thought  at  last  may  ap 
pear  to  be  inconsistent  with  one  another,  he  knows  not  why.  For 
instance,  the  Creator  of  all  things  must  know  all  things :  his 
knowledge  must  be  unlimited,  and  he  must  know,  not  only  past 
events,  but  future ;  who  dare  say  that  he  did  not  know  yester 
day  what  happened  to-day?  or  a  longer  time  before  it  happened  ? 
and  who  will  say  how  long  before  ?  who  will  presume  to  say 
that  God  was  ignorant  of  it  a  year,  two  years,  before?  nay,  an 
hundred,  a  thousand,  a  million  of  years?  It  must  be  allowed 
that  God's  foreknowledge  is  infinite:  "known  unto  God  are  all 
his  works"  from  the  beginning  of  the  world."  But  he  cannot 
know  an  event,  and  yet  that  event  happen  differently  from  what 
he  foresees;  therefore  all  events  are  fixed  and  necessary :  our 
best  actions  are  necessary ;  and  we  ought  to  refer  all  our  best 
actions  to  the  divine  decrees.  God  certainly  made  all  things 
for  his  own  glory ;  he  injluences  us,  for  his  own  glory,  to  do 
well ;  and  how  can  we  resist  ?  God  is  all,  and  we  nothing. 

With  equal  reason  a  person  might  say,  God  is  just,  he  will 
"reward  every  man  according3  to  his  works."  Every  wise  man, 
therefore,  that  knoweth  "to  refuse1  the  evil  and  choose  the 
good,"  will  choose,  <cby  patient  continuance  in  well-doing5,"  to 

1  See  Dr.  Balguy's  8th  Sermon.  2  Acts  xv.  18.  3  Matt.  xvi.  27. 

4  Isai.  vii.  15.  5  Rom.  ii.  1. 


III.  XV.  10.]  KELIGIOUS     SOCIETIES.  455 

II.  "seek  for  glory  and  honour  and  immortality."  Yes,  men  choose, 
certainly  ;  both  reason  and  Scripture  declare  it.  Events  there 
fore  must  depend  on  the  choice  or  will  of  man,  and  therefore 
must  be  unfixed  and  uncertain.  God  may  help,  encourage, 

170  but  he  cannot  be  supposed  to  overrule  us:   were  that  the  case 
we  should  be  mere  machines,   not  accountable  for  any  thing, 
and  his   acts    would   contradict  his  word.     No ;    whether    we 
perish  or  reign  in  eternal  glory,  it  is  all  our  own  doing. 

In  whichever  of  these  two  trains  we  set  out,  we  may  con 
tinue  ;  and  the  same  thing  would  happen  in  some  of  the  other 
subjects  mentioned  as  "unintelligible.  All  that  can  ever  be 
expected  in  such  cases  is,  that  a  man  should  not  go  on  in  one 
train  without  recollecting  that  there  is  another,  in  which  he 
might  have  gone  on  as  smoothly.  This,  though  no  great 
improvement  in  knowledge,  except  in  the  knowledge  of  our 
ignorance,  would  be  an  improvement  in  satisfaction,  and  might 
produce  brotherly  agreement.  For  the  way  in  which  one  man 
is  led  into  a  different  doctrine  or  party  from  his  neighbour,  is, 
by  his  getting  engaged  in  one  of  these  trains,  and  seeing  no 
fallacy.  This  makes  him  neglect  to  compare  it  with  the  other; 
and  he  answers  all  arguments  by  saying,  'mine  must  be  right, 
therefore  whatever  is  inconsistent  with  it,  is  wrong?  Whereas, 
one  has  as  much  right  to  say  this  as  another.  I  believe,  in  fact, 
most  arguments  in  favour  of  necessity  are  answered  by  only 
saying,  they  are  inconsistent  with  virtue ;  and  most  arguments 
in  favour  of  liberty,  by  saying  only,  that  they  are  inconsistent 
with  the  Divine  Omniscience. 

10.  With  the  same  view  of  improving  religion,  we  must 
endeavour  to  improve  our  imagination.  What  I  mean,  is  to  be 
done  by  improving  t\\e  fine  arts,  and  by  applying  them  to  reli 
gious  uses.  By  the  fine  arts,  are  usually  understood  painting, 
music,  poetry,  eloquence,  sculpture,  architecture,  and  perhaps 
some  others.  These  give  the  mind  ideas  of  beauty,  sublimity, 

171  grandeur,  order,  symmetry,  harmony,  rhythm,  &c.,  and  serve 
to  excite  and  strengthen  sentiments  of  various  kinds.      If  these 
are  in  an  improved  state,  they  refine  and  polish,  and,  as  it  were, 
enrich  and  ennoble  the  mind,  so  long  as  they  are  applied  to  any 
subjects  which  are  moral,  or  only  innocent ;   but   they  are  far 
more  useful,  and  do  much   more  good  to  the  mind,  if  they  are 
employed  in  the  service  of  religion.      Religious  paintings  are 
very  improving;  sacred  music,  even  in  its  plainest  kinds,  softens 

0  Chap.  x.  sect.  1  and  2. 


456  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.  10. 

and  soothes  the  heart,  and  makes  it  feel  a  warm  and  affectionate  II. 
piety ;  and,  when  it  becomes  sublime,  it  exalts  the  mind  to  hea 
venly  conceptions :  when  pathetic,  it  melts  the  heart  with 
"godly  sorrow,""  in  a  manner  not  to  be  described.  And  similar 
observations  might  be  made  on  poetry,  eloquence,  and  the  rest; 
though  there  may  be  a  difference  in  degree1. 

It  seems  to  be  undeniably  true,  (and  surely  it  proves  how 
great  and  noble  a  thing  religion  is  in  itself,  and  how  congenial 
to  the  human  mind,)  that  the  fine  arts  are  (generally  speaking) 
infinitely  more  efficacious  when  exercised  on  religious  subjects, 
than  any  others.  The  paintings  which  have  the  greatest  effect 
are  on  religious  subjects.  I  should  be  curious  to  compare  the 
several  works  of  the  best  masters  in  the  art  of  painting,  and  see 
whether  the  best  work  of  each  is  not  religious.  The  Nativity, 
by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  strikes  me  more  than  any  other  piece 
of  his  that  I  have  seen.  I  doubt  whether  the  art  of  sacred 
poetry  has  as  yet  been  well  studied.  Eloquence  of  the  pulpit 
is  not  at  present  what  it  might  be,  or  even  what  it  has  been ; 
though  it  seems  improving,  yet  some  faults  are  usually  admitted 
into  it,  which  lessen  its  effect,  and  can  be  removed  only  by  an 
enlightened  and  philosophical  criticism.  But  sacred  music  has 
been  very  successfully  cultivated;  and  therefore,  though  our  172 
observation  is  true  as  to  all  the  arts,  when  equally  improved,  yet 
its  truth  appears  most  evident  in  the  instance  of  music.  It  has 
been2  said  that  the  opera  is  the  highest  entertainment  arising  out 
of  the  polite  arts;  as  uniting  music,  painting,  poetry,  fine  and 
graceful  action,  grandeur,  dancing,  &c.,  all  which  are  supposed 
to  heighten  one  another,  and  to  receive  additional  effect  from 
the  sympathy  of  the  spectators :  but  what  opera  had  ever  the 
effect  of  the  sacred  music  in  Westminster  Abbey  for  four  years 
together?  I  sincerely  believe  that  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  what 
is  founded  on  religion,  will  ever  be  able  to  attract  such  numbers, 
to  produce  such  expensive  contributions,  to  delight  and  elevate 
for  such  a  length  of  time3. 

1  Hartley  on  Man,  vol.  n.  p.  2f)4.  I  must  confess  that  I  have  seen  much 

2  ]iy  Diderot,   in  his  criticisms  after       better  statues  profane  than  sacred.    Why 
his  comedies   Le  Fils  Nature!,   and  Le    j   it  should  be  so,  I  cannot  conceive ;  sup- 


Pere  de  Famille.  And  Rousseau,  in  his 
Musical  Dictionary,  seems  to  have  much 
the  same  idea. 

3  Something  should  be  said  of  sculp 
ture  and  architecture,  as  they  arc  in  the 
enumeration.  With  regard  to  sculpture, 


posing  Christian  artists  equal  to  heathen. 
Of  religious  architecture  there  are  many 
excellent  specimens,  though  I  fear  we 
are  degenerating  in  respect  to  it.  King's 
College  Chapel,  at  Cambridge,  is,  in  my 
judgment,  the  most  excellent  of  those 


III.  XV.  11.]  RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.  457 

II.  11.  It  cannot  be  conceived  that  improvement  in  religion 
can  go  on  without  our  giving  attention  to  our  religious  senti 
ments,  or  affections ;  without,  in  the  first  place,  watching  their 

173  faults,  and  endeavouring  to  keep  them  in  their  right  state;  nei 
ther  soaring  into  extravagance,  nor  sinking  into  lukewarmness 
and  indifference.      Indeed,  our  chief  business  at  present  will  be 
to  get  precise  ideas  of  their  faults ;   which  we  cannot  be  said 
to  have,  unless  we  see  the  evil  consequences  of  those  faults;  nor 
can  we  well  see  those  evil  consequences,  without  at  the  same  time 
getting  some  notion  of  the  manner  in  which  those  faults  may  be 
remedied.     Faults  there  certainly  may  be  in  religious  as  well  as 
other  affections.      In  every  thing  we  are  in  a  state  of  discipline 
and  trial,  and  therefore  every  faculty  is  liable   to  abuse;  no 
exception  is  made  in  favour  either  of  our   moral  faculty  or  of 
our  religious  affections.      These  affections  have  been  described 
and  classed  in  the  third  chapter :  we  may  proceed  immediately 
to    their  faults.      The   principal   seem   to   be   superstition — 
enthusiasm — mysticism,  and  lukewarmness.     First  of  super 
stition  :   what  it  is  ;   what  are  the  evils  or  mischiefs  of  it ;  and 
what  their  remedies. 

It  is  not  easy  to  define  a  word  which  has  been  used  inaccu 
rately  and  unsteadily.  Words  are  generally  used  before  they 
are  defined — in  moral  and  religious  subjects  at  least;  and  all 
that  can  be  done  is,  to  include,  in  a  definition,  all  the  instances 
in  which  a  word  has  been  used  by  those  who  express  themselves 
carefully.  According  to  this,  we  may  say,  first,  that  when  a 
man  is  called  superstitious,  something  is  meant  respecting  both 
his  understanding  and  bis  feelings* 

A  man  is  superstitious  in  respect  of  his  understanding,  or  his 
notions,  when,  on  seeing  an  event,  he  imagines  that  he  knows 
the  will  of  God,  or  the  rules  or  laws  of  his  government;  so  well, 
as  to  see  his  design  in  that  event ;  particularly  how  it  is  made 
use  of  to  produce  good  or  evil,  reward  or  punishment. 

174  Or,  if  a  man  only  presumes  that  he  knows  the  meaning  of 
any  subordinate  invisible  beings  from  an  event,  he  is  still  called 
superstitious.     I  say  presumes,  for  his   conclusion   cannot  be 
made  by  his  reason ;   it  can  only  be  the  work  of  fancy. 

which   I   have  seen,   for  producing  the       ened  by  its  unity  of  design,  and  by  being 


right    kind    of   effect.     Several  of  our 


seen  all  at  once,  that  it  excites  sentiments 


cathedrals  are  solemn  ;  those  at  Lincoln  j  not  less  noble,  and  yet  n  ore  pleasing,  than 

and  York  in  particular;  bijt  King's  Col-  !  any  other  building.    St.  Paul's  in  London 

k'gc  Chapel  has  its  solemnity  so  refined  i  is  excellent  in  a  different  way.    St.  Peter's 

by  elegance  and  lightness,  and  so  height-  !  at  Rome  I  only  know  by  description. 


458  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.  11. 

An  instance  may  be  found  in  the  scriptural  account  of  the  II. 
barbarous  inhabitants  of  the  island  of  Melita,  or  Malta,  upon 
occasion  of  a  viper's  coming  out  of  the  fire,  and  fastening  upon 
St.  Paul's  hand.  "When  the  barbarians  saw  the  venomous 
beast  hang  on  his  hand,  they  said  among  themselves,  No  doubt1 
this  man  is  a  murderer,  whom,  though  he  hath  escaped  the  sea, 
vengeance  (rj  A 1/07)  suffereth  not  to  live."  "No  doubt"  is  the 
true  language  of  superstition.  These  barbarians  presumed,  that 
they  knew  the  laws  of  the  government  of  superior  beings,  with 
regard  to  murder.  And,  to  be  consistent,  when  they  "saw  no 
harm  come  to  him,"  they  concluded  that  he  must  be  a  god.  The 
case  is  the  same  in  augury  and  divination ;  in  conclusions 
drawn  from  situations,  attitudes,  and  various  appearances  and 
sounds. 

To  this  account  it  may  be  objected,  Does  not  God  really 
govern  the  world?  do  not  the  most  rational  allow  that  he 
punishes  vice  and  rewards  virtue,  drawing  their  conclusions 
merely  from  experience  ?  are  not  the  virtues  settled  by  such 
observations  ?  do  we  not,  from  the  rules  of  God's  government, 
deduce  his  attributes  and  the  truths  of  natural  religion?  It  is 
true,  we  do ;  yet  we  may  go  too  far,  and  imagine  we  know  what 
we  really  do  not.  From  what  we  observe,  we  have  reason  to 
believe  in  a  general  providence,  and  in  a  particular  providence; 
but  we  must  not  speak  decisively  of  any  single  event.  The 
tower  in  Siloam2  fell:  how?  why?  as  a  punishment  upon  the 
eighteen?  that  conclusion  would  be  superstitious;  it  is  too  par-  175 
ticular;  reason  cannot  make  it;  imagination  must  not  be  listened 
to.  But,  with  an  awful  doubt,  we  may  say,  God  governs  by 
his  general  providence ;  he  interferes  by  his  particular  pro 
vidence;  this  may  be  an  act  of  either;  how  far  it  is,  I  cannot 
see  distinctly  ;  but  let  me  be  on  the  safe  side.  By  this  reason 
ing,  we  are  led  to  practical  caution ;  to  feel  the  full  force  of 
what  the  fact  should  principally  suggest, — "except  ye  repent, 
ye  shall  all  likewise  perish." 

Again,  may  we  not,  by  avoiding  superstitious  conclusions, 
miss  making  reasonable  conclusions  from  the  phenomena  of 
nature  ?  Both  follow  from  observation  and  experience  ;  how 
shall  we  know  the  difference  ?  The  difference  may  be  seen,  in 
some  degree,  by  what  has  been  already  said ;  but  we  may  say 
farther,  reason  notes  all  circumstances  carefully,  but  only  grounds 
on  phenomena  observed  repeatedly,  expectation  of  a  still  far- 

1  Acts  xxviii.  8.  2  Luke  xiii.  4. 


III.   XV.   11.] 


RELIGIOUS     SOCIETIES. 


459 


II.  ther  repetition  :  superstition,  by  too  readily  admitting  events 
to  be  similar,  forms  groundless  expectation;  and,  by  neglecting 
distinctions,  gets  still  farther  into  delusion  and  error.  But 
even  this  does  not  mislead  so  much  as  inferring  design  from  a 
nak,ed  event.  Amongst  men,  the  more  ignorant  scarce  ever 
guess  right  at  the  designs  of  the  most  wise  and  knowing  from 
a  single  action  :  how  then  can  any  man  from  an  act  of  the 
Divinity  ?  The  reasonable  man  owns  his  ignorance,  the  super 
stitious  man  knows  the  mind3  of  the  Lord.  When  the  thun 
der  rolls,  or  the  lightning  flashes,  it  is  heard,  or  seen,  by  both; 
but  the  reasonable  man  only  observes  accurately,  and  expects 
to  see  again  what  he  has  generally  seen ;  whilst  the  super 
stitious  man  interprets,  and  makes  out  of  the  awful  sounds  a 

176  judicial  sentence  against  particular  individuals;  makes  the  Deity 
to  express  disapprobation,  prohibition,  menace,  against  those 
who  happen  to  be  his  own  adversaries. 

Though  superstitious  conclusions  must  be  generally  false, 
as  being  in  their  nature  arbitrary,  (non  causa,  pro  causa,)  yet 
they  should  not  be  considered  as  only  false  in  speculation ; 
they  are  seldom  made  without  some  view  to  action,  and  that 
action  is  accomplished  by  means  of  superstitious  feelings. 

The  superstitious  man  is  not  only  so  with  respect  to  his 
understanding,  but  with  respect  to  his  passions,  sentiments, 
feelings.  Those  who  form  superstitious  conclusions,  feel  su 
perstitious  fears.  Fears  ?  why  not  hopes  ?  Hopes  are  not 
inconsistent  with  the  account  now  given  ?  I  would  not  answer 
this  question,  without  expressing  some  diffidence.  It  seems  cer 
tain  that  we  are  more  accustomed  to  hear  of  superstitious  fears 
than  of  superstitious  hopes ;  and  it  is  natural  to  inquire  into 
the  reason.  Sometimes  favourable  omens  excite  superstitious 
hopes  ;  but  the  mind  labouring  under  this  infirmity  generally, 
on  the  whole,  shews  a  propensity  to  imbibe  some  species4  of 
fear.  Let  us  consider  this  matter. 

Superstition  attends  to  external  phenomena  :  it  pretends  to 
discern  the  design  of  God,  but  at  an  awful  distance ;  not  to 
be  actually  present  in  the  divine  councils,  or  to  learn  the  result 
of  them  without  the  intervention  of  signs,  and  those  generally 
of  a  tremendous  nature.  Reserve  is  apparent  in  the  Deity, 


3  Rom.  xi.  34. 

1  Mr.  Hume  has  a  short  Essay  on 
Superstition  and  Enthusiasm.  He  speaks 
of  terror  as  belonging  to  superstition :  so 


does  Hartley.  They  both  saw  the  nature 
of  superstition  better  than  Bacon,  in  my 
judgment.  I  judge  from  his  Essays, 
published  by  Willymott. 


460 


IMPROVEMENT    OF 


[III.  XV.  11. 


and  lias  a  great  and  majestic  appearance :  the  judgment  formed  II. 
is  not  wholly  clear  of  doubt  and  misgiving.  He  who  forms  it 
does  not  presume  that  he  is  distinguished  by  Heaven,  or  that  177 
any  thing  is  imparted  to  him  which  is  withheld  from  the  rest 
of  mankind  :  his  reverence  must  generally  approach  near  to 
dread  ;  and  obscurity1  must  heighten  it.  As  superstition  attends 
to  external  phenomena,  it  must  be  most  affected  by  those  phe 
nomena,  which  are  most  striking.  Now  the  more  sublime  phe 
nomena  of  nature  must  make,  on  the  mind  of  every  man,  a 
deeper  impression  than  the  more  tame  and  gentle  ;  and  sub 
limity  is  allied  to  fear.  What  pleasing  or  favourable  appear 
ance  can  be  so  striking  as  an  earthquake,  deluge,  lightning, 
hurricane,  conflagration,  volcano  ?  The  dread  which  will  be 
excited  by  these,  in  the  superstitious  mind,  will  easily  over 
power  and  banish  any  more  pleasing  sensations ;  or  any  hopes. 
But  moreover,  it  is  to  be  considered,  that  the  tendency  to 
superstitious  conclusions  is  greatest  in  a  mind  previously  timid: 
such  conclusions  heighten  the  timidity,  and  the  timidity  pro 
duces  more  conclusions.  Then  there  is  nothing  which  makes  us 
so  ready  to  interpret  unfavourable  events  into  designed  reproofs, 
or  punishments,  as  remorse,  or  an  uneasy  conscience2 ;  and  the 
more  timid  any  one  is  by  nature,  the  more  forcibly  does  remorse 
act  upon  his  mind.  Put  these  things  together,  and  you  will 
own,  not  only  that  fear  must  be  the  predominant  feeling  of  the 
superstitious  mind,  but  that,  when  scruple  and  religious  melan 
choly  join  themselves  to  an  infirm  bodily  constitution,  and  a 
timid  mind,  and  sympathy  lends  its  aid,  there  is  no  degree  of  178 
panic  to  which  superstitious  feelings  may  not  rise. 

From  superstitious  dread,  the  mind  is  easily  drawn  into 
abhorrence ;  even  from  dread  of  superior  beings  to  abhorrence 
of  men  like  ourselves,  when  they  are  once  conceived  to  be  offen 
sive  to  those  superior  beings.  Passions  once  raised  find  them 
selves  objects,  very  different  in  many  respects  from  those  by 
which  they  were  first  excited3. 

Such  is  superstition,  as  to  opinion  and  passion. 

That  superstition  is  hurtful,  must  already  appear ;   but  it 


1  Isaiah  XLV.  15. 

2  I  have  been   told  of  a  boy  of  the 
name  of  Yorke,  who,   when  at  school, 
went  out  of  bounds.     He  began  to  feel 
some    remorse;    presently    a    crow,    or 
raven,   began  to  make  its  usual  noise, 
caw,  caw.    The  guilty  conscience  made 


this  sound  into  Yorke,  Yorkc  ;  and  the 
alarmed  wanderer  returned  within  his 
prescribed  limits.  Experiments  on  youth 
are  generally  perhaps  the  fairest  and 
most  satisfactory  of  any. 

3  Venger    Dieu.      Esprit    dcs    Loix, 
Livrc  xii.  chap.  4. 


III.  XV.   11.] 


RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES. 


II.  will  be  proper  to  mark  out  some  of  its  evil  consequences  more 
particularly. 

1.  The  superstitious  man  is  unhappy  in  himself,  diffident, 
scrupulous,   full  of  disquietude;  fearing  that  he  has  offended 
God,   and  construing  every  thing  that  he  sees  or  hears  into  an 
intimation  of  the  divine  vengeance. 

2.  Superstition  is  an   enemy  to  benevolence.      The  super 
stitious  are  morose ;   cowards  are  cruel :   arbitrary  conclusions, 
drawn  by  different  men,  must  be  different.     Each  superstitious 
person   presumes   he  has  the  will  of  God :   one  is  opposed  to 
another  with  a  zeal  which  no  natural  affection  or  kindness  can 
withstand.      Friendships,   family  connections,  associations,  all 
fall  before  it :  even  nations  lose  useful  intercourse,   hate  one4 
another,  nay,   proceed  to  actual   injuries,  because  they  have 
adopted  different  sorts  of  superstition. 

3.  Superstition  is  an   enemy  to  reason,   and  to  arts   and 
sciences.      Reason  is  dull  and  tedious,   in  comparison  of  the 
imagination  ;  and  their  dictates  will  thwart  and  contradict  each 
other.     Reason  thus  becomes  despised  and  abhorred,  and,  if  it 

179  pretends  to  make  much  resistance,  gets  persecuted5.  If  the 
fine  arts  are  only  neglected  by  the  superstitious,  they  are  for 
tunate  ;  they  may  easily  come  to  be  reckoned  supporters  OA 
impiety  ;  and  then  they  will  suffer  persecution. 

4t.  Lastly,  superstition  is  unfavourable  to  virtue  in  general. 
This  must  be  the  case  with  every  thing  that  is  unfavourable  to 
benevolence.  Virtues  are  species  of  benevolence  :  "  love  is  the 
fulfilling  of  the  law."  But,  moreover,  it  diverts  men  from 
founding  their  religious  hopes  on  the  performance  of  their  duty. 
It  makes  them  indeed  think  much  of  the  divine  vengeance;  but 
it  leads  them  to  appease  it  by  externals,  which  do  not  mend 
the  heart.  The  king  of  Moab  offers  to  bow  himself  "  before 
the  high  God11  with  the  most  costly  superstitions,  or  even  with 
the  sacrifice  of  his  son6:  the  prophet  disclaims  them  all,  and 
enjoins  only  the  fundamental  principles  of  moral  duty7. 

13y  these  remarks  we  are  naturally  led  to  the  remedies  for 
superstition.  They  may  be  applied  to  the  understanding,  or 
to  the  heart.  It  is  most  practicable  to  clear  the  understanding 
of  this  fault ;  and  that  will  tend  also  to  keep  the  heart  clear 


4  Esprit  ties  Loix,Liv.xxiv.chap.22,yz;t. 

r>  The  instance  of  Galileo  was  men 
tioned  in  the  last  chapter  of  the  second 
Eook. 


0  Micah  vi. 

7  Mr.  Hume  has  something  to  this 
purpose;  Natural  History  of  Religion, 
latter  end. 


462  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.  11. 

of  it.     These  distinctions  must  be  made  familiar  : — between  II. 
expecting  a  sort  of  event,  and  knowing  the  use  of  a  particular 
event,  as  a  reward  or  punishment :   between  saying,  '  there  is 
a  judge  of  all  men,'  and  { this  is  a  judgment  on  a  particular 
man  f  or  between   '  this  is  a  judgment,1  and,  '  this  may  be  a 
judgment.1     And  we  might  sometimes  check  our  presumption, 
by  making  it  a  rule,   to  allow  ourselves   no  conclusion,   from   180 
any  event,  or  appearance,  which  we  would  not  allow  barbarians 
to  make  from  thunder  or  an  eclipse.     The  happiness  of  man 
shews  us  best  the  will  of  God. 

If  the  heart  is  already  infected,  some  remedies  may  be 
applied  to  that.  It  is  in  our  power  to  hinder  our  sentiment  of 
respect  from  becoming  excessive ;  we  need  not  indulge  it.  It 
is  in  our  power  to  make  that  degree  of  self-esteem  and  confi 
dence  habitual,  which  reason  recommends  in  an  hour  of  calm 
ness  and  serenity.  "  If  our  heart  condemn  us  not,  then  have 
we  confidence  towards  God1."  "We  trust  we  have  a  good 
conscience,  in  all  things  willing  to  live  honestly2."  It  is  in  our 
power  to  dwell  on  texts  like  these,  till  they  strengthen  our 
minds ;  as  also  to  dwell  on  instances  of  God's  goodness,  paying 
for  a  while  less  attention  to  instances  of  his  power3.  If  means 
were  used  to  strengthen  the  nervous  system  of  the  body,  that 
would  strengthen  the  mind  ;  as  would  the  exercise  of  our  rea 
son.  Ridicule  might,  in  some  cases,  dissipate  superstition ;  but 
perhaps  it  may  be  too  dangerous  a  remedy  to  be  recommended 
to  all  indiscriminately. 

To  conclude  this  subject  of  superstition  :  I  would  not  be 
thought  to  say,  that  every  degree  of  awe,  on  seeing  evils  and 
calamities,  or  great  instances  of  divine  power,  is  wrong.  A 
serious  question,  whether  God  may  not  intend  any  evils  as 
warnings  or  punishments,  is  right  and  reasonable ;  and  its  effect 
upon  our  conduct  may  be  as  great  as  a  positive  decision  that 
he  does.  Without  seeing  God  in  the  clouds,  and  hearing  him 
in  the  wind,  we  may  "  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a 
rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him4 ;"  nay,  we  may  set 
God  always  before  us.  We  want  not  panics  to  make  us  admire 
and  adore  him  ;  much  less  to  make  us  pay  him  a  pleasing  and  181 
reasonable  service. 

Enthusiasm  in  some  things  is  allied  to  superstition  ;  for  a 
man  may  be  called  an  enthusiast,  either  with  respect  to  his 
intellects  or  his  passions.  There  is  an  enthusiastic  conclusion, 

1  1  John  iii.  21.         2  Heb,  xiii.  18.        :t  See  chap.  iii.  sect.  \\.        4  Heb.  xi.  (I. 


III.  XV.  11.]  RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.  463 

II.  and  an  enthusiastic  affection.  A  man  makes  an  enthusiastic 
conclusion,  when,  upon  any  sentiment  arising  in  his  mind,  he 
so  presumes  God  to  be  the  cause  of  it,  as  to  take  for  granted 
he  sees  the  design  of  God  in  exciting  it ;  not  merely  so  as  to 
acknowledge  God  to  be  the  author  of  nature ;  not  as  if  the 
sentiment  arose  according  to  any  law,  by  which  his  mind  or 
body  was  formed;  but  as  if  the  divine  will  was  imparted  to  him 
by  it,  as  a  man^s  will  by  his  words.  The  conclusion  is  also 
enthusiastic,  if  the  sentiment  be  only  presumed,  in  the  same 
particular  manner,  to  have  been  excited  by  inferior  spirits. 
Some  believe  only  in  what  may  be  called  demons. 

From  this  account,  superstition  and  enthusiasm  may  seem 
at  first  more  alike  than  they  really  are.  They  are  both  wrong 
ways  of  fixing  upon  God  as  a  cause ;  but  superstition  attends 
to  external  effects,  enthusiasm  to  internal.  And  this  differ 
ence  causes  many  others.  Indeed,  they  may  jointly  influence 
the  mind;  and  then  perhaps,  or  when  either  is  supposed  to  in 
fluence,  without  determining  which,  would  be  the  proper  use 
of  the  term  fanaticism.  The  immense  army  of  Crusaders^1 
seem  to  have  been  fanatics  in  this  sense — superstitious  and  en 
thusiastic  at  the  same  time. 

It  may  be  objected  to  our  account  of  enthusiasm,  Can  it 
be  wrong  to  dwell  on  the  notion,  that  God  is  the  cause  of 
our  thoughts?  is  he  not  so?  In  some  sense  he  is;  but  yet 
it  is  one  thing  to  say,  in  general,  c  we  have  no  power  of  think- 

182  ing  independent  of  God,1  and  another  to  say  of  a  particular 
thought,  '  this  thought  is  now  dictated  to  me  with  such  a 
design  i  '  this  thought,1  as  distinguished  from  other  thoughts 
— l  to  me,"1  as  distinguished  from  other  persons.  It  cannot  be 
wrong  to  say,  '  may  not  this  thought  or  feeling  be  excited 
for  an  encouragement  or  discouragement  ? '  but  to  decide  is 
enthusiastic.  We  have  no  safe  way  of  arriving  at  such  con 
clusion,  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge. 

Objections  may  be  made,  not  only  on  principles  of  natural, 
but  of  revealed  religion  ;  not  only  relating  to  mere  thoughts, 
but  to  moral  sentiments  and  resolutions.  Are  we  not  told 
that  our  good  thoughts  and  purposes  are  inspired  ?  yes,  we 
are  to  be  humble  in  all  things,  and  give  God  the  glory ;  and 
virtue  seeming  more  in  our  power  than  any  thing  else,  we 
are  enjoined  to  ascribe  even  that  to  the  Supreme  Being  in 
some  way  or  other — in  some  indistinct  way  ;  merely  with  the 

Near  the  end  of  the  12th  Century,  in  1190,  &c. 


464  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.  11. 

practical  view  of  making  ourselves  sober-minded,  diligent,  II. 
thankful,  pious.  Besides,  what  is  told  us  only  enables  us  to 
form  a  general  proposition,  that  all  our  virtues  ought  thus 
to  be  ascribed  to  God ;  not  to  say  of  an  action,  merely  as  an 
action,  that  it  is  inspired.  Till  we  know  whether  an  action 
is  good,  we  do  not  know  whether  God  is  to  be  thanked  for 
it  as  inspired.  If  we  were  desirous  to  form  a  judgment  whe 
ther  a  particular  action  was  inspired,  we  must  first,  from  prin 
ciples  of  morality,  endeavour  to  determine  whether  it  was  a 
good  action  ;  and  even  then  we  can  only  say,  as  far  as  it  was 
good,  so  far  we  are  told  to  thank  God  for  it,  (though  in  a 
very  indistinct  manner,)  lest  we  should  be  proud  even  of  our 
virtue.  Though  an  action  were  called  by  a  good  name,  it 
might  not  be  really  good.  What  so  likely  to  be  good  as  zeal 
for  religion?  yet  one  may  have  a  zeal  "not  according  to  know-  183 
ledge  V  Nay,  we  cannot,  even  taking  for  granted  the  goodness 
of  an  action,  determine  how  far  the  declarations  of  Christianity 
are  to  be  applied  to  it.  You  find  a  treasure :  you  might  con 
ceal  it,  but  you  restore  it  to  the  owner :  thank  God  that  you 
do  so  !  yet  an  heathen  might  have  done  the  same.  How  far 
was  your  good  action  owing  to  heathen  virtue  ?  how  far  to 
Christian  inspiration  ? 

In  every  instance  then  of  enthusiasm  there  is  an  arbitrary 
conclusion,  which  we  may  reckon  as  an  error.  But,  as  in  the 
case  of  superstition,  such  conclusions  seldom,  if  ever,  termi 
nate  in  speculation2;  they  lead  to  some  action,  which  is  carried 
on  by  the  enthusiastic  feelings. 

An  enthusiast  is  such,  not  only  with  respect  to  his  intel 
lects,  but  also  with  respect  to  his  feelings,  or  affections.  The 
ground-work  of  the  enthusiastic  passion  is  presumption  ;  but 
zeal,  and  love,  and  hope,  enter  into  the  composition  ;  and  the 
compound  is  powerful — runs  into  ecstacy  and  rapture.  That 
this  is  so,  is  matter  of  observation ;  why  it  should  be  so,  de 
serves  to  be  considered  ;  that  is,  why  taking  for  granted  that 
God  suggests  our  sentiments,  should  generate  such  a  compound 
affection. 

We  cannot  well  be  persuaded  that  God  suggests  a  parti 
cular  thought,  without  imagining  that  we  have  "  known  the 
mind  of  the  Lord,"  after  the  manner  of  counsellors  or  distin 
guished  friends.  This  must  immediately  make  us  feel  presump- 


llom.  x.  2. 


2  Battle  of  Dunbar.   \VhitfieliTs  Jour 


nals.    Bishop  Gibson's  4th  Pastoral  Let 
ter. 


III.  XV.   11.]  RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.  465 

II.  tion  ;  and  we  must  naturally  be  zealous  to  propagate  what  has 
been  intrusted  to  us  in  so  flattering  a  manner.  We  must  love 
him,  by  whom  we  are  so  graciously  distinguished  ;  and  strongly 

184-  hope  for  a  continual  increase  of  his  favour.  An  affection  or 
sentitnent  so  compounded  must  easily  mix  with  every  species  of 
self-esteem — with  pride,  vanity,  self-approbation  ;  and,  from 
the  mixture,  we  may  conceive  its  strength.  Sanguine  persua 
sion  of  the  approbation  of  God  must  needs  be  a  strong  senti 
ment  of  itself;  but,  mixed  with  the  others,  its  strength  must 
be  greatly  increased.  Then,  it  is  chiefly  men  whose  tempera 
ment  is  naturally  sanguine  that  are  apt  to  encourage  enthu 
siastic  conclusions  ;  and  they  will  be  apt  to  ascribe  to  God 
those  of  their  feelings  which  are  most  bold  and  elevated.  Who 
ever  reflects  on  all  these  things,  and  considers,  that  many  en 
thusiasts  may  sympathize  with  each  other,  (though  each  regards 
himself  as  superior  to  the  vulgar,)  will  see,  that  enthusiastic 
passion  may  rise  to  any  degree  of  fervor.  Not  that  God  is 
really  more  likely  to  excite  a  strong  sentiment  than  a  mild  one; 
but  bold  enthusiastic  men  will  be  apt  to  think  so. 

As  to  the  evils  of  enthusiasm — that  and  superstition,  being 
only  different  modes  of  presuming  that  we  'know  the  designs 
of  God,  are  likely  to  produce  some  of  the  same  effects,  though 
in  different  ways. 

1.  Enthusiasm  lessens  the  happiness  of  the  enthusiast  him 
self.      He  is   tossed  by  violent  passions ;   sometimes  elevated, 
sometimes  dejected  ;  a  stranger  to  that  cheerful  even  serenity, 
which  is  the  best  sort  of  happiness  this  world  affords3. 

2.  Enthusiasm  is  unfavourable  to  benevolence.      Not  but 
the  enthusiast  sometimes  loves  man,  as  well  as  God  ;   but  his 
affection  is  not  pleasing  and  attractive:  he  is  either  affectionate 
to  excess,  and  so  disgusts ;  or  he  is  very  morose.      He  is  also 
too  overbearing,   too  deficient  in  candour,  for  any  durable  con- 

185  nection:  all  such  are  maintained  by  delicate  respect,  and  mutual 
attentions.  And,  if  even  his  brother  differ  from  him  in  religion, 
he  is  ready  to  treat  him  as  his  enemy,  because  he  is  the  enemy 
of  God  ;  and  to  consider  him  as  a  proper  object  of  persecution. 

3.  Enthusiasm  is  an  enemy  to  reason,  arts,  sciences,  much 
in  the  same  manner  with  superstition.     But  it  seems  still  more 
an  enemy  to  experience,  which  is  really  the  source  of  almost 
all  our  practical  knowledge;   and   even  of  morality  itself.     I 
know  not  whether  some  things,  which  have  the  form  of  mathe- 

1  Bishop  Butler. 

VOL.   I.  30 


466  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.   11. 

matical  reasoning,  do  not  owe  the  conviction  they  give,  partly  II. 
to  being  tried. 

4.  Enthusiasm  is  an  enemy  to  authority  and  subordination, 
the  benefits  of  which  are  very  solid  and  extensive.    The  prin 
ciple  of  doing  things  "right  in  the  sight  of  God1,"  against  the 
authority  of  man,  may  be  very  easily  misapplied. 

5.  But  it  should  be  made  a  separate  remark,  that  enthu 
siasm  prevents  a  just  interpretation  of  Scripture  ;   and,  by  oc 
casioning,  in  different  minds,  arbitrary  conclusions,  which  can 
not  coincide,  makes  dissensions  unavoidable,  at  the  same  time 
that  it  renders  men  more  unfit  to  engage  in  them. 

Those  remedies  for  enthusiasm  are  most  easy  to  administer 
which  keep  the  understanding  clear  of  error;  and  these  may 
prevent  the  passions  from  taking  any  wrong  turn.  They  ap 
pear  from  what  has  been  said.  We  should  never  rashly  assign 
causes,  particularly  for  what  happens  in  our  minds,  of  which 
we  know  but  little.  We  should  be  aware,  that  it  is  one  thing 
to  say,  «  we  cannot  think  or  feel  without  the  help  of  God,"* 
and  another  to  say,  4  God  suggests  this  thought  or  sentiment, 
with  such  a  particular  design?  We  may  allow  that  such  a 
thought  or  sentiment  may  be  intended  for  such  a  purpose,  but  186 
we  must  never  affirm  that  it  is.  We  must  keep  in  mind,  that 
vehemence  is  no  real  mark  of  the  Divinity  :  above  all,  that 
an  act,  or  resolution,  is  only  to  be  called  inspired,  as  far  as 
it  is  right :  that  no  man  is  to  say,  '  this  action  was  inspired, 
therefore  it  is  right  ;"*  but  only,  I  believe  such  an  action  right, 
and  on  that  supposition  I  thank  God  for  it. 

Something  may  be  done  to  the  sentiments  or  affections. 
Humility  should  be  encouraged,  in  order  to  obviate  presump 
tion,  and  make  our  love  respectful.  Our  respect  might  be 
increased  by  dwelling  rather  on  instances  of  the  power  of  God, 
than  of  his  goodness.  And  such  measures  should  be  taken, 
not  only  at  the  moment  when  we  are  most  inclined  to  enthu 
siasm,  but  according  to  some  constant  regular  plan  of  religious 
discipline.  They  would  indeed  affect,  not  only  the  heart,  but 
the  head  also,  and  the  heart  through  the  medium  of  the  un 
derstanding. 

It  would  guard  both  head  and  heart,  if  we  studied  men  and 
things*  The  works  of  the  creation  would  make  us  admire 
the  Divine  wisdom,  and  be  sensible  of  our  own  ignorance,  at 
the  same  time  that  it  took  us  from  the  business  of  engendering 

1  Acts  iv.  19. 


III.  XV.  11.]  RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.  467 

II.  fancies  in  our  own  brain.  But  we  should  not  content  ourselves 
with  a  mere  inactive  contemplation  of  the  works  of  nature.  We 
should  study  their  powers  and  uses,  and  measure  the  quantities 
of  those  powers;  which  is  done  by  mathematics.  It  would 
have  the  same  kind  of  effect,  if  we  conversed  much  with  men 
in  active  life — men  of  no  theory,  guiding  themselves  wholly 
by  practical  maxims. 

Lastly,  after  using  these  methods  by  way  of  preparation, 
we  should  read  the  Scriptures  as  they  were  intended  to  be  read 

187  — as  "  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness2 ;"  without  any  fanci 
ful  constructions,  any  chimerical  applications  to  ourselves.      I 
believe  any  person,  who  was  inclined  to  enthusiasm,   might  do 
himself  much  service  by  reading  some  of  the  most  rational  in 
terpreters  of  it ;   some  of  those  who  have  been  called   divine 
philosophers3,  and  philosophical  divines. 

The  next  fault  of  the  religious  affections  is  mysticism. 
This  may  be  considered  as  a  sort  of  enthusiasm,  but  yet  it 
seems  to  require  a  separate  mention  :  if  it  did  not,  it  would 
not  have,  probably,  a  separate  name.  I  call  it  a  fault,  but  it 
is  not  always  acknowledged  to  be  one.  Some  persons  profess 
themselves  to  be  mystics,  but  none  call  themselves  superstitious 
or  enthusiastic.  To  avoid  any  dispute  about  words,  we  will 
say  then,  that  we  mean  false*  mysticism,  or  the  faulty  excess 
of  it :  any  thing  that  is  praiseworthy  in  it  may  be  mentioned 
afterwards. 

Mysticism,  in  this  sense,  seems  to  be  a  very  strong  devout 
affection,  carrying  men  from  action  and  reasoning  to  passionate 
and  rapturous  contemplation  ;  sometimes  to^/zte5,  or  ecstasies*, 
which  deprive  men  of  the  use  of  reason. 

As  the  word  affection  sometimes  includes  religious  fear,  hope, 
and  other  sentiments,  it  may  be  proper  to  say,  that  it  is  here 
used  in  the  sense  of  love.  Mysticism  seems  to  be  an  excess  of 
the  love  of  God  ;  with  some  perversion  :  excluding7  hope  and 

188  all  view  to  rewards:   pure,  disinterested.     Such  love  is  also  to 
be  shown  by  mystics  to  man. 

Men  seem  to  be  tempted  into  it  by  various  inducements; — 

*  Acts  xxvi.  2o.  xiv.  pp.  30,3,  306,  12mo.    She  married 

»  Kurd,  vol.  in.  Serm.  llth,  p.  20J.  (  hrist  in  an  ecstasy,  p.  308. 

4  ,m.      A     ,  6  Dionysius  Carthusianus  was  "  Doctor 

4  The  Authors    of  the    Diet.    Acad.  i 

MtaJtat*."     Bona,  chap.  11. 
Fran,  make  a  difference   between   vrai  ,     v      ,  j    n 

.    ..  7  Maxims  by  Fenelon,  end  of  1st  Art. 

mystique  and  fauat  mystique.  ...  ,         Ort0   c.  1^.1 

!    trite.     Volt.  p.  303.  Summary  by  Fenelon 

5  Voltaire  about  Mad.  Guion;  Louis    |    Of  Swedenborj?,  p.  Rl. 

:!() — 2 


468  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.   XV.   11. 

partly  by  vanity,  or  a  desire  of  soaring  above  vulgar  devotees  ;  II. 
partly  by  pleasure.  The  devout  affections  are  pleasurable,  as 
well  as  others  ;  and  there  is  always  something  tempting  in  a 
very  specious  pretence  for  evading  moral  duties,  and  living  in 
a  continued  indolence :  not  to  mention,  that  love  of  one  sort 
is  not  wholly  unconnected  with  love  of  another  sort.  There  is1 
some  connection  between  spiritual  love  and  carnal.  It  will 
always  be  worth  while  for  mystic  voluptuaries  to  be  cautious 
of  taking  liberties,  or  running  hazards,  with  those  of  a  different 
sex.  Besides,  in  mysticism,  the  fancy  is  warmed,  and  finds  a 
boundless  field  in  which  it  may  expatiate.  Those  who  have 
indulged  in  reverie  know  the  charms  of  this. 

We  must  distinguish  between  inducements  to  mysticism, 
and  pleas  by  which  it  is  defended.  Those  who  run  into  it  are 
apt  to  dwell,  as  much  as  infidels,  on  the  folly  of  controversies 
about  religion  ;  and  say,  that  religion  is  not  intended  to  per 
plex  or  employ  the  head,  but  to  mend  and  purify  the  heart ; 
that  philosophy  is  vain — -the  work  of  weak  and  fallible  man. 
Doctrines  are  to  be  taken  on  authority  :  God  should  be  lis 
tened  to,  and  God  alone.  With  regard  to  Christianity,  the 
first  teachers  of  it  had  no  learning;  how  can  we  think  it  neces 
sary  for  us?  languages  are  a  dead  letter2;  and  so  on.  Pos-  18.9 
sibly  the  fall  of  angels*,  and  the  origin  of  evil,  may  have 
engaged  some  in  deep  visions  and  contemplations  concerning 
angelic  beings  and  the  soul  of  man ;  and  the  seeming  necessity 
of  solving  these  may  have  appeared  to  justify  the  solutions. 
The  same  may  be  observed  of  the  more  wonderful  parts  of  na 
ture  ;  particularly  *jire  and  Alight.  Fantastic  reveries  on  these, 
connecting  them  with  the  Deity  and  inferior  spirits,  have 
seemed  to  be  disquisitions  which  man  ought  not  to  neglect. 
Chemical  mysteries,  made  religious,  seem  to  have  constituted 
the  fancies  of  the  Rosier ucians. 

Expressions  of  Scripture  are  frequently  brought  to  justify 
mysticism.  Indeed  it  may  begin  with  Scripture  in  its  right 
sense  (a  common  case).  All  parables  must  have  a  meaning 


1  See  Voltaire  about  parodying  love- 
songs,  p.  308,  Louis  xiv.  12mo.  About 
Moravians,  see  Maclaine's  Mosheim, 
18th  Cent.  vol.  vi.  8vo,  p.  23.  Also  see 
Rimius,  p.  55,  &c.  Augustin's  account 
of  Manichean  sacrament  proves  a  con- 
nection  in  thought  of  someone's.  Sweden- 


to  loves  and  marriage.    Summary,  pp.  64, 
80,  83. 

2  Behmen,2dBook,  "  Concerning  three 
Principles,"  margin  at  the  end  of  Preface. 

3  Behmen,  2d  Book  "  Concerning  three 
Principles  :"  title-page,  and  Index. 

4  Deut.  iv.  24.   Behmen's  40  Questions, 


borg  has  also  a  pretty  deal  of  reference       Quest.  1st.  5  John  i.  7 9. 


III.  XV.  11.] 


RELIGIOUS     SOCIETIES. 


469 


II.  besides  the  literal  one,  this  may  be  called  mystical ;  prophecies 
have  double  senses;  action  sometimes  expresses  important  truth; 
St.  Paul  uses  a  continued  allegory6  of  a  refined  sort.  Types 
must  have  mystical  meanings  :  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  church; 
the  church  therefore  is  his  mystical  (not  real)  body ;  the 
church  is  his  mystical  spouse,  and  so  on.  But  the  mystics 
carry  this  on,  as  I  conceive,  from  parables,  &c.  to  what  does 
not  admit  of  it — history  and  morality  :  and  in  every  thing  carry 
it  to  excess. 

And  in  texts,  where  they  do  not  multiply  meanings,  they 
increase  the  intensity  of  the  signification  beyond  all  reason. 
As  in  those  about  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit ;  no  man  can 
come  unto  me  except  the  Father7  draw  him  :  in  those  about 
the  carnal  man8,  or  natural  man:  in  those  which  relate  to  peace 
190  of  mind  ;  as  if  "  the  peace  of  God,  which  passeth  all  under 
standing,1'  excluded  all  action,  of  body  and  mind,  and  was  an 
union  with  God  :  and  in  those  which  relate  to  love ;  as  that  it 

is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  &c that  on  the  love  of  God  and 

man  depend  all  the  law  and  the  prophets  ; — as  if  love  were  the 
end,  and  not  the  cause  of  kind  actions.  "  Seeking"1  is  a 
favourite  word.  I  do  not  see  rightly  how  it  has  become  so. 
"  Will  seek  (Luke  xiii.  24)  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able." 
Also  Matt.  vii.  13. 

Mysticism  has  the  name  of  Quietism,  from  the  idea  that 
Christian  perfection  consists  in  the  quiet  and  repose  of  the  soul, 
in  indifference9,  and  annihilation,  as  far  as  relates  to  worldly 
business :  in  calling  it  off  from  secular  cares,  and  devoting  it 
wholly  to  God  :  in  what  is  called  passive  contemplation. 

Specimens  of  mysticism  may  be  found  in  the  works  of  Ja 
cob10  Behmen,  published  or  prepared  in  two  volumes  quarto,  by 
his  advocate  William  Law;  of  the  Hon.  Emanuel  Swedenborg; 


5  Gal.  iv.  21,  &c. 

7  John  vi.  44.    xii.  32. 

8  Rom.  viii.  6,  7.     1  Cor.  ii.  14. 

9  Diet.  Acad.  Quietisme  <$  Quietude. 
Volt.  Louis  xiv.  Qui6tisme.  And  Fene- 
lon's  Maxims  of  the  Saints.  Art.  21,  and 
conclusion,  or  Preface.    Bona  calls  mys 
ticism  via  quietis :  beginning  chap.  iii. 
p.  109. 

10  He  signs  Jacob  Baehmen,  in  Pref.  to 
40  Questions.    Mosheim  calls  him  Beh- 
min,  Bohmius,  Boemen  and  Boehmen ; 
and  in  one  place  a  lAofHMl&0r,  in  another 


a  tailor.  Ladvocat  writes  Boehm,  of 
Lusatia;  shoemaker:  M.  1624.  Fludd, 
who  is  mentioned  in  Wood's  Athen. 
Oxon.  is  called  by  JMosheim  the  master, 
or  model,  or  &c.  of  Behmen. 

I.  P.  who  takes  the  title  of  M.  D.  has 
published  a  little  vol.  12mo,  about  Jacob 
Behmen,  with  extracts — not  more  intel 
ligible  than  Jacob  himself.  Dr.  Balguy 
calls  something  "impenetrable  rwnsense." 
My  candour  has  made  me  labour  to  pene 
trate  here,  bat  all  in  vain. 


470  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.   11. 

and  others.     But  Archbishop  Fenelon's  Maxims  of  the  Saints  II. 
will  seem   more  worthy  of  attention,  on  account   of  the  cha 
racter  of  the  author,   and   the  disturbance  which   it  occasion-  191 
ed1.     The  preface  of  itself  gives  a  good  idea  of  Fenelon's  sort 
of  mysticism,   if  we  take  care  to  understand  the  words  rightly: 
teachable,  illusion,  manners,  &c. 

The  Quakers  are  reckoned  a  species  of  mystics;  and  most 
of  their  errors  may  be  referred,  either  to  what  we  have  said  of 
enthusiasm,  or  else  of  mysticism  :  TO  0a>?,  they  make  inward 
illumination.  But  I  will  only  mention  Barclay's  Apology  as 
the  principal  book  in  defence  of  Quakerism,  and  Bennefs  con 
futation  of  Quakerism,  at  present,  as  a  book  which  may  be  con 
sulted.  Barclay  (who  died  near  the  end  of  the  seventeentli 
century)  is  very  different  from  Belimen,  inasmuch  as  he  has 
all  the  appearance  of  reasoning;  and  some  knowledge  of 
Scripture  is  required  to  confute  him.  The  Methodists  used, 
about  thirty  years  ago,  to  apply  texts  of  Scripture  in  the  man 
ner  above  mentioned.  I  imagine  they  do  it  now  in  a  less 
degree ;  but  I  am  not  quite  certain*.  The  names  of  Bourig- 
non  and  Leadley  would  lead  to  more  instances  of  mysticism,  if 
authors  of  ecclesiastical  history  were  consulted. 

But  there  are  various  degrees  of  mysticism  ; — and  persons 
of  cold  temperaments,  confined  to  intellectual  attainments,  void 
of  taste,  and  dull  in  sentiment,  may  call  by  that  name  every 
act  of  kind  or  grateful  affection  towards  the  Supreme  Being. 
As  there  is  a  great  variety  in  the  tempers,  tastes,  and  senti 
ments  of  different  men,  considerable  latitude  should  be  allowed 
in  such  matters  as  these.  The  philosophical  speculatist  should  192 
not  condemn  all  warmth  of  devout3  affection  ;  nor  the  affection 
ate  devotee  think  that  he  who  keeps  God's4  commandments 
calmly,  and  interprets  Scripture  rationally,  is  rejected  of  God, 
because  he  shews  but  little  taste  or  sensibility.  Amongst  the 
mystics  of  the  515th  century  we  find  men  of  great6  eminence: 


See  Voltaire's  History  of  Louis  xiv.   j    p.   70.     And   I    think   he  speaks  as  if 


Quie'tisme.  Mosheim,  &c. ;  and  in  some 
editions  of  the  Maxims  of  the  Saints, 
some  history  of  it  appears — (G.  12 — 78. 
Cambr. ) 

•  Here  would  be  the  place  to  read 
John  Wesley's  account  of  Mysticism,  in 
the  13th  Letter  published  by  Priestley. 
The  Methodists  used  to  have  classes 


mystics  were  of  very  different  sorts. 

3  See  Butler's  Sermons  on  the  Love  of 
God,  and  the  conclusion  of  his  Preface, 
about  them. 

4  1  John  v.  3. 

5  See    Mosheim,    cent.   15.    part    II. 
chap.  iii.  sect.  11.  p.  455  of  vol.  v.  8vo. 

6  The  Authors  of  Diet.  Acad.  make  a 


formed  from  experiences.   Rimius  speaks      difference  between   vrai  mystique,   and 
of  the  Moravians  as  mystics :  Narrative,   i  faux  mystique ;   and  probably  make   it 


III.  XV.  11.]  RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.  471 

II.  "  Thomas  a  Kempis,  the  author  of  the  Germanic  Theology  so 
highly  recommended  by  Luther;"  Savanarola;  and,  as  a 
favourer,  may  be  mentioned  the  learned  Marcilius  Ficinus,  the 
great  commentator  on  Plato. 

Cardinal  Bona~  has  given  a  regular  systefn  of  Mysticism. 
A  cursory  reader  may  consult  the  contents  of  his  chapters, 
and  the  third  section  of  his  first  chapter ;  in  which  section 
he  lays  down  several  distinctions  between  the  slow  way  to 
God,  and  the  short  way.  He  has  given  indeed  a  system  of 
both  ;  calling  his  first  system  (that  which  I  conceive  to  be  the 
same  with  this  slow  way)  manuductio  ad  ccclum,  the  latter, 
via  compendii  ad  Deum  per  motus  anagogicos  et  ignitas  aspi- 
rationes.  Madame  Guion  called  her  treatise  Moyen*  court, 
&c. ;  that  treatise  which  occasioned  the  contest  between  Fenelon 
and  Bossuet. 

193  There  is  something  in  mysticism  into  which  men  at  all 
times  are  apt  to  fall  ;  I  mean  those  of  fine  imaginations  and 
warm  passions.  To  bring  it  to  a  great  height,  other  circum 
stances  must  join;  as  retirement,  security,  abstinence,  leisure, 
&c.  What  was  said  at  the  end  of  the  first  Book,  concerning 
the  early  heresies9,  will  confirm  this  sufficiently ;  and  there 
might  be  a  continued  history  of  mysticism  down  from  the 
earliest  ages10  of  Christianity  to  the  present  times.  Indeed,  no 
man  can  be  prepared  to  enter  on  the  religious  world,  who  is  a 
stranger  to  the  manner  in  which  it  has  operated,  and  is  likely  to 
operate  in  future. 

What  has  been  said,  though  immediately  intended  as  defi 
nition  or  description,  will  give  us  an  idea  of  the  evils  of 
mysticism  in  its  faulty  state.  It  seems  to  be  an  enemy  to 
rational  religion,  to  reason  in  general,  and  to  virtue.  To  re 
ligion,  as  it  hinders  men  from  studying11  it;  to  reason,  as  it 
hinders  them  from  respecting  and  cultivating1*  it ;  to  virtue,  in 
several  different  ways.  It  makes  men  useless,  when  it  runs  to 
great  excess ;  it  furnishes  them  with  means  of  evading  such 
duties  as  they  cannot  be  ignorant  of;  and  it  prevents  them 


in  compliance ;  but  they  would  not  com 
ply  with  every  body.  Their  making  the 
difference  shews  that  they  thought  some 
mystics  of  consequence. 

7  Died  1674,  aged  65,  of  Mondovi— 
studious,  so  as  to  correspond  with  literati. 
Maxims,    &c.  p.   173.   G.   12  —  78. 


9  One  might  compare  the  Valentinian 
aeons  with   Behmen's  angels ;    and   the 
fire  of  some  Orientalists  with  his  fire. 

10  Maxims,  &c.  Pref.  pp.  4,  8. 

11  Mystics  are  mentioned  in  ^this  re 
spect  afterwards,  Book  IV.  art.  vi.  sect.  2. 
and  art.  vii.  sect.  3. 


Cambr.     Voltaire,   Louis  xiv.  p.  303.—   i        12  See  Rimius's  Narrative,  p.  47,  bot- 
Quietisme.  I    torn  ;  and  p.  82. 


472  IMPROVEMENT    OF  [III.  XV.   11. 

from  learning  many  others.  I  believe  those,  who  understand  II. 
morality  best,  find  great  attention  necessary  to  make  them  see 
their  duty  in  all  circumstances,  and  the  secondary  or  instru 
mental  methods  of  performing  it ;  and  those  who  attend  to  it 
but  little,  are  for  ever  getting  into  wrong  conduct.  Mysticism 
encourages  vanity  or  spiritual  pride;  and  in  general  I  fear  it  is  194- 
but  too  true,  that  those  who  give  themselves  up  much  to  re 
ligious  passion,  are  found  deficient  in  that  to  which  religion  is 
intended  to  lead  us, — purity  of  manners,  approving  things  ex 
cellent,  and  carefulness  in  maintaining  good  works :  they  per 
vert  the  means,  so  as  not  to  attain  the  end1. 

The  remedies  of  these  evils  seem  rather  obvious.  It  would 
be  of  itself  sufficient  for  those  who  have  a  tendency  to  mysticism, 
to  consider,  that  one  man,  or  one  Christian,  has  a  right  to  do 
what  another  has  ;  and  what  would  be  the  consequence  of  all 
giving  themselves  up  to  passive  contemplation,  indifference, 
and  to  an  annihilation  of  all  their  faculties  ?  Those  who 
were  not  far  gone  might  profit  from  exercise,  of  body  and 
mind ;  and  from  mixing  in  active  life ;  from  those  bodily 
hardships  which  give  courage  and  vivacity ;  from  those  men 
tal  investigations,  and  trials  of  ingenuity,  which  give  acuteness 
and  discernment.  And  such  as  are  too  far  gone  to  adopt 
these  remedies,  can  only  be  regarded  with  silent a  pity  and 
benevolence. 

In  laying  out  my  plan,  I  mentioned  lukewarmness  as  one 
of  the  faults  of  the  devout  affections  ;  but  this  I  need  not 
dwell  upon.  In  every  thing  that  has  been  said,  it  has  been  im 
plied  that  our  affections  may  be  too  weak  as  well  as  too  strong; 
especially  in  the  third  chapter,  and  the  three  last  sections  of 
the  present  one.  It  need  only  therefore  be  just  mentioned,  195 
that  there  is  such  a  fault  as  lukewarmness^  in  order  to  make 
our  enumeration  complete.  There  are  a  set  of  men  in  active 
life,  who  go  to  church  as  a  matter  of  form  or  decency ;  to 
these  Bishop  Gibson  addresses  the  first  part  of  his  fourth 
Pastoral  Letter,  on  Lukewarmness.  Though  some  latitude 
may  be  allowed,  yet  every  man  should  have  a  religious  princi- 


1  1  would  not  say  that  mystics  are  of 
course  vicious.  The  moderate  ones  wish 
their  disciples  to  do  good  offices  and 
works  from  mystic  motives.  See  Sweden- 
borg,  Summary  View — aof  Charity  and 
good  Works,"  p.  85 :  but  the  tendency  of 
mysticism  may  be  here  rightly  described. 


And  that  tendency  may  be  confirmed  by 
a  sufficient  number  of  examples.  Even 
Swedenborg  mentioned  a  spiritual  life 
separate  from  a  moral  life.  See  Dialogues 
concerning  him,  pp.  95,  97- 

2  Dr.  Balguy,  p.  100,  and  p.  116. 


III.  XV.   12.]  RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.  4>*J3 

II.  pie,  and  some  degree  of  religious  affection.  Fear  of  God  is 
the  beginning  of  religious  wisdom :  afterwards  it  may  admit  of 
a  greater  and  greater  mixture  of  love,  and  approximate  to 
wards  that  perfect  love  which  casteth  out  fear.  The  manner 
of  nourishing  a  passion,  externally  and  internally,  has  been 
mentioned ;  and  what  encourages  one  passion  may  discourage 
another.  It  must  be  required  of  every  Christian  to  perform  his 
duties  on  religious  and  on  Christian,  as  well  as  on  moral  prin 
ciples  :  "  as  unto  God."  It  must  be  required  of  him  also  to 
"  grow  in  grace,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  his  Lord  and  Saviour," 
as  in  a  state  of  discipline.  This  is  very  different  from  acqui 
escing  in  a  mere  routine  of  religious  observances.  Neverthe 
less,  though  a  man  may  in  some  sense  be  dissatisfied,  he  ought 
not  to  neglect  public  worship,  because  he  has  happened  not  to 
relish  it  for  a  few  times :  that  would  be  to  say,  I  will  not  take 
the  bark,  because  I  have  the  ague. 

12.  In  the  last  place,  it  cannot  be  conceived  that  religion 
can  go  on  improving,  without  some  improvements  taking  place 
in  discipline  and  ceremonies. 

If  any  persons  were  to  set  themselves  on  improving  disci 
pline,  they  must  pay  great  attention  to  particular  situations, 
hereditary  notions  and  prejudices;  to  the  force  of  habits;  to 
principles  of  association3  and  sympathy,  imitation,  love  of 

196  order,  and  the  fine  arts ;  to  the  effect  of  frequent  instructions 
and  worship  ;  of  acts  of  penitence  and  submission  ;  of  their 
gradual  increase  in  severity  ;  to  the  efficacy  of  shame  in  enforc 
ing  censures.  They  must  be  well  aware  of  the  strength  of  that 
mutual  affection  which  may  arise  between  the  pastor  and  his 
flock,  and  of  the  benefits  resulting  from  a  due  regulation  of  it; 
of  the  utility  of  uniting  many  pastors  in  council,  for  the  good 
of  many  neighbouring  congregations.  They  must  be  able  to  dis 
cern  what  kind  of  authority  is  most  likely  to  be  successful  in 
uniting  all  the  congregations  in  a  large  district  into  one  ;  giving 
power  with  such  provisions  and  checks  as  shall  hinder  it  from 
being  abused. 

Those,  who  should  undertake  to  improve  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  must  also  have  clear  notions  of  the  difference  be 
tween  a  church  considered  merely  in  itself,  and  a  church  con 
nected  with  a  state.  One  power  should  govern  the  former,  free 
from  bodily  coercion ;  another  the  latter,  enforced  by  civil  au 
thority  in  many  particulars. 

J  Chap.  iii. 


474  IMPROVEMENT    OF    RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES.     [III.  XV.  13. 

Ceremonies1  may  admit  of  improvement,  though  there  is  II. 
benefit  arising  from  their  being  settled,  ceteris  paribus.  They 
are  a  part  of  discipline ;  and  therefore  what  has  been  just  now 
said  on  discipline  may,  in  part,  be  applied  to  them.  Moreover, 
they  should  be  decent,  expressive,  plain,  with  a  noble  sim 
plicity  ;  graceful,  yet  modest ;  mild  and  reserved,  yet  capable 
of  producing  lively  sentiments.  Romish2  ceremonies  seem  to 
me  to  want  expression.  Though  magnificent,  they  are  insipid. 
One  is  most  interested  in  them  when  one  calculates  the  expence 
which  they  have  occasioned.  The  ceremonies  of  the  Quakers 
are  simple  in  the  extreme  ;  and  those  of  the  Moravians  excite  197 
no  idea  but  of  order:  yet  it  must  be  owned,  that  animation 
without  foppery  or  ridiculous  blundering  is  difficult  to  accom 
plish.  At  Torgau3,  or  Gouda,  I  once  saw  a  funeral-ceremony 
void  of  all  pathos  and  solemnity ;  and  the  modern  Jews  seem 
to  walk  about  their  synagogue  in  London,  at  religious  meetings, 
as  if  religion  was  not  at  all  in  their  thoughts.  Picart's  book  of 
religious  ceremonies  might  afford  some  hints  to  promote  im 
provement  in  that  particular. 

13.  Thus  have  we  gone  through  all  the  particulars  pro 
posed.  If  they  were  all  put  in  a  right  train,  they  would 
mutually  assist  one  another ;  and  we  should,  ere  long,  have 
arguments  which  would  convince,  eloquence  which  would  per 
suade,  music  and  painting  which  would  charm,  forms  of  devo 
tion  which  would  purify  and  exalt  the  soul.  We  should  love 
God,  not  only  with  all  our  heart,  or  affections,  but  with  all 
our  mind,  or  intellectual  faculties.  We  should  pray  with  the 
spirit,  we  should  pray  with  the  understanding  also ;  and  these 
things,  all  together,  would  generate  in  the  heart  principles  and 
motives  which  would  render  us  "  stedfast,  immovable,  always 
abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord." 

1   Uniformity  of  Ceremonies,  chap.  iv.  sect.  2. 

3  See  Sir  Edwin  Sandys's  Speculum  Europae,  pp.  3,  8,  9.  3  June  7,  1771- 


IV.  Introd.  1.]  475 

II.  BOOK    IV. 

198 

OF  PARTICULAR  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES. 


ARTICLES  OF   RELIGION. 

INTKODUCTION. 

1 .  IT  seems  the  best  plan,  in  our  circumstances,  to  treat 
of  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  particular  societies,  by  con 
sidering  the  Articles  of  our  own  Church.  If  we  followed  a 
system,  we  should  naturally  select  some  doctrines  as  worthy  of 
peculiar  attention  ;  and  it  is  best  to  select  those  with  which  we 
are  most  concerned.  These  will  of  course  be  most  interesting; 
and  the  more  they  interest  us,  the  better  shall  we  study  and 
understand  them.  Whatever  has  immediate  relation  to  fact  is 
more  lively  and  striking  than  what  terminates  in  mere  specula 
tion  ;  and  especially  if  it  be  foreseen  that  we  ourselves  are 
likely  to  be  called  upon  to  act  in  consequence  of  our  reason 
ings.  Occasion  prompts  men  to  great  exertions.  While  occasion 
is  in  view,  most  men  can  prevail  upon  themselves  to  do  much 
more  than  they  can  when  it  is  past. 

I  should  imagine,  that  the  general  reasonings,  which  we 
have  had  in  the  third  Book,  would  have  been  more  tedious,  if 
some  application  of  them  to  fact  did  not  seem  possible  while 
they  were  going  on.  They,  I  should  presume,  may  have  a 
tendency  to  dissipate  groundless  scruples  and  difficulties,  as 
well  as  to  prevent  the  opposite  fault  ;  but  a  social,  open,  can- 
199  did  inquiry  into  the  Articles  themselves,  must  have  that  same 
tendency  in  a  greater  degree. 

The  Founder  of  our  institution  wished  to  have  young  per 
sons  in  the  University  duly  prepared  for  the  ministry.  This 
his  general  design  cannot,  I  think,  be  better  answered  than  by 
considering  attentively  those  Articles  to  which  such  persons  are 
to  give  their  assent.  He  has  indeed  specified  some  subjects- 
which  he  desires  to  have  treated ;  but  they  may  be  all  intro 
duced  in  one  part  or  other  of  our  plan.  His  intention  seems 
particularly  to  have  been,  to  have  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
taught  as  it  is  summarily  laid  down  in  the  formularies  of  our 
Church ;  and  surely  that  intention  cannot  be  more  directly  ex 
ecuted  than  by  reading  lectures  on  the  Articles  themselves.  I 
think  he  had  some  doubts  about  some  doctrines  contained  in 
the  Articles ;  and  (as  he  was  not  inclined  to  popery)  I  should 


476  ARTICLES     OF     KKLKilON.  [IV.  Intfod.   1. 

judge  it  must  be  about  the  agency  of  God  in  promoting  the  sal-  II. 
vation  of  man;  which  will  include  the  13th  and  18th  Articles, 
seemingly  condemning  good  men  if  not  true  Christians ;  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  think  he  was  averse  to  any  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  England  being  candidly  considered  ;  rather  the 
contrary.  There  is  much  greater  reason  to  think  he  would 
wish  to  have  all  the  Articles  discussed,  than  that  he  would 
choose  to  leave  those  who  were  designed  for  the  ministry  pre 
judiced  against  them,  or  mistaking  their  force,  and  the  nature 
of  the  assent  to  be  given  to  them. 

It  is  not  a  thing  to  be  neglected,  that  many  are  desirous,  at 
this  time,  to  make  a  change  in  the  doctrine  of  the  National 
Church :  some  of  these  are  philosophers  and  scholars ;  some 
even  ministers  of  the  Church.  Now,  whether  we  suppose  them 
to  have  reason  on  their  side  or  not,  nothing  can  be  more  sea-  200 
sellable  than  our  design.  If  their  complaints  are  without  foun 
dation,  nothing  can  shew  it  more  clearly  ;  if  a  change  is  really 
wanted,  that  which  is  to  be  altered  should  be  understood  before 
it  be  altered.  One  would  not  pull  down  a  venerable  old 
house  without  examining  it,  and  seeing  whether  a  few  trifling 
changes,  a  little  cleaning  and  lighting,  and  perhaps  pulling 
down  a  superfluous  room  or  two,  would  not  make  it  a  much 
more  eligible  dwelling  than  any  which  would  be  built  accord 
ing  to  the  new  plan.  Hitherto,  whatever  imperfections  our 
doctrines  and  forms  may  have,  nothing  has  been  proposed 
which  appears  to  me,  on  the  whole.,  to  be  worthy  to  supersede 
them ;  or  which  is  likely  to  be  agreed  to  by  those  who  are 
averse  to  innovations  in  general,  or  to  the  newly  proposed 
schemes  in  particular.  Those  who  have  proposed  change 
appear  to  me  far  inferior  in  solidity  of  judgment  to  those  who 
have  resisted  it.  This  is  not  reasoning,  to  be  sure,  but  it  is  na 
tural  for  me  to  speak  my  opinion,  when  I  am  explaining  my 
own  methods  of  proceeding;  and  I  do  believe  that  the  most 
improved  comments  on  the  Scriptures  would  rather  confirm  our 
Articles  than  overthrow  them. 

Bishop  Burnet  speaks  as  if  a  person  who  attempted  an  ex 
planation  of  our  Articles  might  be  accused  of  presumption. 
We  see  here  the  good  of  constituting  offices!  A  man  may, 
vvithout  imputation  of  presumption,  do  many  things  in  office 
which,  as  a  private  individual,  he  might  be  blamed  for  under 
taking.  Thus  the  appointment  of  offices  calls  forth  the  services 
of  many  who  would  be  useless ;  and  prevents  that  modesty, 


IV.  Introd.  2.]         ARTICLES   OF  RELIGION.  477 

II.  which  in  reality  qualifies  a  man  for  an  undertaking,  from  act 
ing  as  a  reason  why  he  should  decline  it. 

201  2.    We  determine  then  on  the  Articles.      The  first  thing 
which  strikes  us  is  the  number  of  them.     Bishop  Burnet  gives 
us   some   satisfaction    on  this  head  :    and   we   may  say,   that, 
generally  speaking,  the  more  Articles,   the  smaller  the  number 
of  those  who  can  unite  under  them  ;   and  yet  it  seems  a  right 
method   to   unite  as  many  Christians  as   possible ;   that  is,   as 
many  as  can  go  on  together  in  peace,   and  attain  the  ends  of 
religious  society.      Therefore,   the    first   profession    attempted 
should  be  a  short  enumeration  of  those  essentials  by  which  a 
Christian  is  distinguished  from  an  heathen  or  a  Jew ;   but,  if 
this  enumeration  is   taken  in  different  senses,  and  those  who 
maintain  them  cannot  unite,  or  be  silent,  they  must  separate1; 
and  then,   to  prevent  confusion,  and  going  backwards  and  for 
wards  without  principle,   declarations  must  be  made  to  render 
the  separation  intelligible,  definite,  practicable ;    and  all  parties 
quiet.     Declarations  may  be  repeatedly  made  in  different  senses  ; 
till  it  may  happen  that  one  church  may  have  occasion  to  dis 
tinguish  itself  from  a   number  of  other  churches.     This  may 
cause  a  great  variety  of  articles  of  faith,  none  of  which  could 

202  be  deemed  superfluous.      Now  I  apprehend,   that  it  is  in  this 
manner  that  our  Church  comes  to  have  so  many.     Some  are 
against  one  sect,   some  against  another  :   our  reformers  wanted 

•to  separate  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  yet  to  avoid  running 
into  any  opposite  extreme.  Now  surely,  if  we  had  no  Articles 
but  what  must  naturally  arise  in  such  a  situation,  we  could 
not  be  said  to  have  too  many.  Let  any  man  then,  in  going 
through  them,  examine,  whether  this  is  not  the  truth.  The 
Church  of  England  has  no  Articles  but  such  as,  I.  might  seem 
necessary  to  make  a  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
prevent  papists  from  prevaricating2 :  2.  Such  as  might  seem 

faith  were  made  before  any  religious 
societies  were  formed— voluntarily,  and 
not  of  necessity.  They  might  as  well 


1  Whenever  men  have  been  free  from 
the  restraint  of  a  religious  establishment, 
they  have  broken  out  into  strange  notions 
and  fancies,  which  have  prevented  their 
uniting  with  rational,  sober-minded  men. 
This  happened  particularly  on  the  first 
publication  of  Christianity,  and  at  our 
Reformation.  (See  Burnet,  Introd.  8vo. 
p.  5.)  This  makes  it  very  probable  that 
a  very  short  creed  is  not  a  practicable 
expedient  in  the  present  state  of  things. 
Men  deceive  themselves  by  taking  for 
granted  that  articles  and  confessions  of 


take  for  granted  that  cannons  and  gun 
powder  and  weapons  were  made  before 
there  were  any  contentions  ;  and  then  ex 
claim,  What  a  shame,  that  implements 
for  the  destruction  of  mankind  should  be 
in  constant  use!  no;  weapons  were  in 
vented  from  time  to  time  as  war  made 
them  requisite. 

2  See  Book  III.  chap.  ix.  sect,  o;  or 
Burnet,  flvo.  p.  .">. 


478  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  Illtrod.  2. 

necessary  to  hinder  the  Church  from  falling  into  the  opposite  II. 
extreme,  of  Puritanism  :  3.  Such  as  every  religionist  would  re 
quire  to  have  settled  in  one  way  or  other,  as  being  universally 
objects  of  dispute :  and  lastly,  Such  as,  when  a  body  of  doc 
trines  or  truths  was  to  be  compiled,  could  not  be  omitted  con 
sistently  with  such  a  design.  If  this  prove  to  be  the  truth, 
our  Church  seems  defensible ;  and  one  thing  in  favour  of  the 
notion  is,  that  some  Articles,  which  were  made  in  1552,  were 
cut  off  in  1562 l. 

Hence  it  seems  a  fallacy,  when  any  person  complains,  that, 
in  order  to  be  a  member  of  our  Church,  a  man  must  have 
thirty-nine  difficult  metaphysical  propositions,  each  containing2 
many  more,  to  assent  to.  To  any  one  man  a  great  many 
articles  are  not  to  be  reckoned  as  any  thing.  What  signifies  it 
to  a  Puritan,  who  abhors  every  thing  which  comes  at  all  near 
popery,  how  many  articles  our  Church  has  against  the  Church 
of  Rome  ?  It  would  never  burthen  his  conscience  if  every 
Romish  superstition  and  every  Romish  saint  was  condemned  by  203 
a  separate  article.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Socinian. 
There  are  three  or  four  Articles  which  relate  to  him  :  all  the  rest 
he  ought  to  speak  of  as  having  no  being  \ 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  say,  that,  if  our  national  doc 
trine  was  to  be  new-modelled,  all  our  present  Articles  must  be 
retained  ;  that  would  depend  on  circumstances :  but  I  believe, 
that,  if  our  circumstances  required  thirty-nine,  as  much  as  those 
of  our  reformers  did  in  1562,  it  would  not  be  right  or  prudent 
to  have  a  less  number.  Bishop  Hurd,  in  the  llth  Sermon  of 
his  third  volume,  seems  inclined  to  retrench  Articles  about  mys 
terious  or  difficult  doctrines ;  and  he  would  now  be  a  leading 
man  in  any  councils  in  which  he  would  think  proper  to  engage. 
I  conjecture,  that,  if  it  were  entrusted  to  me  to  form  a  new  set 
of  articles,  in  order  to  separate  the  Church  of  England  from  all 
those  which  are  incapable  of  carrying  on  the  purposes  of  reli 
gious  society  with  it,  I  should  myself  simplify  some  parts  of  our 
present  confession  ;  but  whether  that  would  be  a  real  improve 
ment,  is  another  question.  And  that  I  should  do  so,  can  only 
be  matter  of  conjecture,  till  I  fairly  discuss  the  question  in  my 
own  mind.  So  long  as  our  present  Articles  continue,  I  must 

1  III.  ix.  7.  parliament.     Dr.  Balguy's   5th  Charge, 

2  Bp.  Law's  Considerations  on  Sub-  !   pp.  2J8,  263.     If  indeed  they  had,  every 
scriptions,  p.  6.  !   article  against  Papists  would  be  a  burthen 

3  The  Socinians  have  no  objection  to  to  their  consciences, 
excluding   Papists :  see  their  petition  to 


IV.  Introd.  3.]         ARTICLES  OF  RELIGION.  479 

II.  honour  them  highly,  looking  back  to  the  times  when  they  were 
made  ;  whatever  might  be  spared  of  them  in  the  present  times, 
could  men  be  unanimous  about  them. 

3.     The  next  thing  to  the  number  of  our  Articles,  is  their 
worth  or  value.      In  my  own  opinion  they  are  very  much  un- 

204  dervalued  :  more  than  I  can  well  express.    Bishop  Burnet  says, 
in  one  place,  "  How  or  by  whom  they  were  prepared,  we  do  not 
certainly   know  :"  some  lines  afterwards  he   says,  "  they  were 
prepared,    as   is    most    probable,    by    Cranmer   and   Ridley" 
"  Questions  were  framed  relating  to  them,  these  were  given4 
about  to  many  bishops  and  divines,  who  gave  in  their  several 
answers,  that  were  collated  and  examined  very  maturely  :   all 
sides  had  a  free  and  fair  hearing,  before  conclusions  were  made." 
From  those,  whose  works  we  know,  we  can  judge  of  the  rest; 
and  it  seems  sufficiently  clear,  that  the  persons  who  compiled 
our  Articles  were  men  of  the  first  ability.     As  scholars  (if  we 
except  a  few,  though  mere  linguists  ought  not  to  be  reckoned) 
we  are  mere  children  to  them.      The  Scriptures  they  were  con 
versant  in  to  a  degree  of  which  few  now1  have  any  conception 
(so  at  least  I  believe).    Ecclesiastical  history,  of  facts  and  opin 
ions,  lay  open  before  them.    Yet,  they  were  not  mere  scholars, 
nor  monks,  nor  monkish  men;  but  skilled  in  government;  know 
ing  men  and  manners;  liberal  in  behaviour;  free  from  all  fanati 
cism;  full  of  probity,  yet  guided  in  their  measures  by  prudence. 
Conceive  all  these  roused,  animated,  by  the  grandeur  and  im 
portance  of  the  occasion  ;  all  their  powers  exerted  to  the  utmost, 
with  diligence  and  ardour  ;  and  you  will  agree,  well  might  Dr. 
Balguy  say,  "  The  age  of  Ridley,  Jewel,  and  Hooker5,  will  be 
reverenced  by  the  latest  posterity."      And  of  the  Articles  in 
particular  we  may  say,  there  is  not  an  article  composed  in  any 

205  spirit  of  opposition  or  contradiction.     6  Moderation  continually 
prevailed.    Indeed  it  must  have  prevailed  ;   for  the  end  in  view 
was  to  retain  as  great  a  number  as  possible  of  the  most  mode 
rate  amongst  both  Papists  and  Puritans  :  and  the  complaints  of 
both  parties  prove  this.    Enemies  to  Calvinism  have  complained 
that  our  Articles  were  Calvinistic  ;   but  not  more  strongly  than 
the  Calvinists  have7  complained  that  they  were  not  so.     No  set 


4  Introduction,  p.  6,  8vo.  :  vol.  2d,  p.  723.  Le 

5  Charge   V.   p.  271.     Bishop   Kurd  j  6  Puller's  "  Moderation  of  the  Church 
calls  the  reformers  "a  few  divine  men,"  i  of  England,"    is  worth  consulting. 

p.  200,  vol.  in.  Serm.   llth.     See  last  7  See  last  chap,  of  2d  book  of 


chap.  of  2d  hook  of  Bingham's  Apology  ;       ham's  Apology.     Collier's  Eccles.  Hist. 
and  beginning  of  the  1st  chap.  Works,    '    quoted  before:  viz.  vol.  TI.  p.  7-M. 


480 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  Introd.  3. 


of  men  could  be  chosen,  nor  any  circumstances,  more  likely  to  II. 
form  a  good  set  of  Articles.  They  would  fall  short  of  nothing 
attainable,  through  indolence  or  cowardice;  they  would  set 
down  nothing  carelessly,  on  the  presumption  of  its  passing  un- 
examined  ;  they  would  overshoot  nothing,  in  hopes  of  catching 
a  few.  They  had  nothing  for  it  but  to  fix  on  that  which  right 
reason  and  good  feelings  would  embrace. 

If  it  be  asked,  why  men  do  not  commonly  esteem  our  Arti 
cles  according  to  this  account  ?  I  would  answer,  perhaps  partly 
because  they  and  the  writings  of  the  age  are  in  a  language  now 
become  ^uncouth  and  antiquated;  but  really  the  chief  thing 
which  hinders  us  from  esteeming  them  is  our  own  ignorance. 
Christians  are  to  be  united  by  hitting  off  a  due  medium  between 
two  opinions ;  and  we  are  ignorant  what  the  opinions  are.  And 
yet  we  proceed  in  a  petulant  manner ;  reasoning  superficially, 
and  despising  what  we  ought  to  venerate.  Let  us  then  first 
suspect  ourselves  ;  and  then,  after  examination  of  ourselves,  we 
may  freely  try  them.  It  frequently  happens  that  we  find  fault  206 
with  others  (especially  if  they  are  plain  and  unassuming)  when 
the  fault  is  only  in  ourselves. 

Yet,  after  all,  the  compilers  of  our  Articles,  and  the  authors 
of  the  Reformation,  were  but  men ;  and,  if  they  had  imperfec 
tions,  absolute  or  relative,  we  ought  not  to  shut  our  eyes 
against  them.  Their  relative  imperfections  will  arise  from  im 
provements  made  since  their  time.  In  what  then  are  we  improv 
ed  ?  Perhaps  we  cannot  say  that  any  one  man  now  is  a  better 
divine  than  one  man  then,  upon  the  whole ;  but  we  may  say, 
that  improvements  have  been  made  in  some  particular  criticisms 
and  expositions2;  though  possibly  such  men  as  the  Reformers 
might  have  made  as  great,  at  least,  in  the  same  time.  Whether 
improvements  have  been  made  in  logic,  or  even  in  mathematics, 
as  far  as  relates  to  theological  reasoning,  I  doubt ;  but  morality 
has  been  improved  (and  would  be  much  more  so  if  we  had  Dr. 
Balguy's  explanation  of  his  Heads  of  Moral  Lectures),  and 
natural3  religion,  and  metaphysics1.  It  may  be  worth  adding, 
as  a  thing  greatly  affecting  religion,  that  we  are  much  improved 
in  seeing,  conceiving,  and  allowing  the  rights  of  toleration: 
and  in  the  whole  matter  of  uniting  civil  power  with  ecclesiastical, 


1  Even  Bp.  Law  could  fancy  there  is 
something  ridiculous  in  "  under standc<l" 
Subscriptions,  p.  6,  note. 

2  By  Locke,  Taylor,  &c.  and  in  many 


Sermons. 

3  By   Clarke,   Boyle,   Ray,   Derham, 
Balguy. 

4  By  Locke. 


IV.  Introd.  4.]         ARTICLES  OF    RELIGION.  481 

II.  the  more  I  see  of  the  controversies  about  the  king  being  head  of 
the  Church,  the  independency  of  the  Church,  &c.,  the  more  I 
am  convinced  of  the  worth  and  excellency  of  Bishop  Warbur- 
ton^s  Alliance  of  Church  and  State.  I  think  also  that  we  are 
improved  with  respect  to  superstition  and  enthusiasm;  for, 
though  we  have  many  who  run  into  those  faults,  they  are  not 
persons  of  much  eminence.  The  abolition  of  the  law  against 

207  witches  is  one  good  proof  of  this.      'The proofs  also  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity  are  improved  by  controversy  with  Deists;   but 
then  Articles  are  not  aimed  at  either  Deists  or  Atheists. 

Dr.  Balguy  seems5  to  hint  at  some  ambiguities  and  inac 
curacies  in  our  Articles ;  and  to  insinuate  that  some  things  are 
unphilosophical  in  them  ;  and  that  some  things  may  mislead, 
or  draw  men  into  erroneous  opinions.  I  do  not  at  present  re 
collect  instances,  but  we  must  keep  this  in  mind  as  we  go  along. 

4.  Our  next  business  may  be  to  see  how  we  can  ascertain, 
or  approach  to,  the  primitive  sense  of  our  Articles.  This  must 
be  done  by  putting  ourselves  in  the  place  of  those  who  com 
piled  them.  History  only  can6  place  us  in  past  ages;  in  short, 
we  may  say,  that  we  should  study  the  history  of  the  Reforma 
tion.  This  would  inform  us  how  doctrines  were  gradually  pro 
pagated.  We  have  a  book7,  printed  in  1543,  called  "  a  neces 
sary  doctrine"  &c.8;  which,  though  it  has  many  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  in  it,  was  intended  to  instruct  the  people^ 
was  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  and  was  chiefly  prepared  by  Arch 
bishop  Cranmer*.  Some  judgment  may  be  formed  from  this, 
early  as  it  was — in  some  points  a  good  judgment.  In  1549  an 
Act  of  Parliament  passed  for  the  King  (Edward  vi.)  to  em 
power,  for  three  years,  thirty-two  persons,  half  clergy,  half 
laity,  to  reform  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  England.  Their  laws 

208  are  in  being,  though  never  enforced,  and  make  a  book  entitled 
Reformatio   Legum  ;  from    which   the    mind    of  the  reformers 
may  be  seen  in   several  doctrines.      The   commission   is  dated 
two    years    after    the    Act,    and    one    before    King    Edward's 
Articles10. 

fl  P.  293.               6  Book  III.  chap.  ix.  vm.  said  it  was  Cranmer's  own  book. 

7  For  an   account  of  books  published  Burnet's  Records,  vol.  n.  p.  238,  quoted 

by   authority    at  this  time,   see  Fuller's  in  Diss.  on  IJth  Art.  p.  32. 

Church    History;    particularly   the  7th  I        "'  One  might  compare  that  part  of  the 

book.     That    book   is   on   the    rei^n   of  Reformatio  Legum,  which  is  called  the 

Edw.  vr.  !    Epilopus  to  the  chapter  de  7/</'/vx  ;//>/>, 

K  Burnct,  p.  f»,  Hvo.  !    with    what   comes    before   it    in  the   vo- 

9  Heylin,  Hist.  Quinqu.  2.  8.    Henry  j   lume. 

VOL.  I.  31 


482 


ARTICLES     OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  Illtrod.  4. 


As  our  Articles  were  taken  in  part  from  the  confession  of  II. 
Augsburg,  and  as  that  was  composed  by  Melancthon,  we 
might  clear  up  in  some  points  the  primitive  sense  of  our  Arti 
cles,  if  we  consulted  either  that  confession,  or  the  writings  of 
that  divine.  Erasmus  was  professor  in  the  University  of 
Cambridge;  and  his  Paraphrase  on  the  Gospels  was  placed1 
in  the  English  churches  at  the  time  of  the  reformation;  that 
therefore  must  have  expressed  the  mind  of  the  reformers. 
And  their  meaning  is  partly  to  be  collected  from  some  of  their 
own  writings,  and  from  their  Lives ;  some  of  which  are  written 
by  Strype2 ;  all  to  be  found  in  the  Biographia  Britannica.  I 
speak  particularly  of  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Latimer,  Hooper,  and 
Jewel. 

The  Homilies  must,  of  course,  shew  the  meaning  of  the 
Reformers  ;  the  second  book  of  which,  published  1560,  is  said 
to  have  been  written  chiefly  by  Jewel.  The  first  book,  pub 
lished  in  1547  (1st  Edward  vi.),  was  written  chiefly  by  Cranmer, 
assisted  probably  by  several  persons  commissioned  for  that  pur 
pose:  Latimer  is  thought  likely.  There  is  a  Life  of  Ridley, 
by  Mr.  Glocester  Ridley3,  in  quarto ;  and  Heylin's  Historia 
Quinquarticularis,  Part  II.  Chap.  8,  is  well  worth  consulting ; 
as  is  the  Introduction  to  his  Life  of  Laud  (Cyprianus  An-  209 
glicus.4) 

I  think  it  is  not  to  be  conceived  that  the  primitive  sense  of 
any  expression  is  always  one  single  sense.  The  reformers  very 
probably  left  some  expressions  open,  to  be  taken  in  some  few 
different  senses5 :  so  that,  proving  that  a  certain  sense  may  be 
called  the  primitive  sense,  is  not  proving  that  another  cannot 
be  called  so.  And  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  in  some  points, 
between  the  first  reformers  and  those  in  the  latter  end  of  Eli 
zabeth,  &c.(i.  In  Mary's  reign,  as  was  observed  before,  the 


1  See  Edw.  vi.  Injunctions,  in  Spar 
row's  Collection,  or  Fuller's  History. 

2  Fox's  {tActs  and  Monuments"  has 
some  Disputations,  &c.  in  which  opinions 
and  proofs  appear. 

3  See  particularly  Book  V.  sect.  7- 

4  There  is  a  Latin  book,  published  in 
quarto  at  London  in  1617,  called  Doc- 
trinaet  Politia  Ecclesioe  Anglicana,  &c., 
containing  Jewel's  Apology,  two  Cate 
chisms  in  Latin,  our  common  one  and  a 
fuller,   the  common  prayers,  &c.  which 
mentions,  in  the  title  of  the  39  Articles, 


the  heretics  against  which  they  were 
made  : — Sabellians,  Manicheans,  Arians, 
Tritheists,  Macedonians,  Ebionites,  Nes- 
torians,  Eutychians,  Novatians,  Dona- 
tists,  Pelagians,  Semipelagians,  Papists, 
Servetians,  Anabaptists,  and  others. 

5  See    Powell,    Disc.   ii.  p.  36;    and 
Nicholls  on  the  Title  of  the  Articles. 

6  See  Oxf.  Pamph.  on  17th  Art.  p.  1, 
and  79.     Bishop   Kurd  seems   to  make 
this  distinction  ,  vol.  in.  Serm.  xi.  pp. 
206,  207. 


IV.  Introd.  5,  6\]    ARTICLES   OF   RELIGION.  483 

II.  English  refugees  imbibed  Calvinism  abroad7.  A  distinction  is 
also  to  be  made  between  the  primitive  and  the  literal  sense. 
They  may  coincide  at  first,  because  allusions  are  then  adopted 
intuitively  ;  but,  after  a  length  of  time,  they  will  differ,  because 
allusions  will  then  be  lost*. 

The  original  of  our  Articles  perished  in  the  fire  of  London  ; 
but  there  are  copies,  manuscript  and  printed:  in  these  are  some 
various  readings,  but  not  any  of  consequence.  If  the  original 
had  been  preserved  only  one  reading  could  have  been  right,  now 

210  different  readings  may  contend:  but  the  case  is  the  same  with 
the  sacred  writings  themselves.      Bennetts  collation  of  the  va 
rious  readings  will  be  mentioned  by  and  by. 

5.  No  person  will  think  of  reading  the  Articles  carefully 
without  paying  some  attention  to  the  Injunction  or  Declaration 
which  is  prefixed  to  them.      But  I  have1'  already  said  enough  of 
this. 

6.  I    will  now  mention  a  few  writers  on    our    Articles. 
There  are  more  than  I  have  seen,  or  than  I  can  now  remember 
by  name.     Atjirst,  the  Articles  wanted  but  little  explanation  ; 
the  chief  thing  they  wanted  was  Scriptural  proof.      What  opi 
nions  and   practices   they  meant   to   refer  to  was,   I  imagine, 
generally   known.      The  most  complete  collation  of  different 
copies,  which  I  have  seen,  is  in  Bennetts  Essay.      He  has  also 
given   a  good  history  of  their  formation,  and  some  remarks  on 
the  nature  of  the  assent  given  to  them.     Bennet's  Essay  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  his  Directions  for  studying  the  Articles. 
In  this  last  he  refers  to  the  confutation  of  popery,  &c. — meaning 
his  own.      Anthony  Collins  Esq.,   the   freethinker,    seems   to 
have  written  something  upon   the  Articles — against  them  pro 
bably  ;  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  meet  with  it.      I  have  an 
exposition  by  Veneer;  one  by  Rogers;  a  very  small  one  by  Ellis, 
proposing  and  briefly  solving   some  objections.      Welchman  is 
in  every  one^s  hands.     Rogers  gives  historical  hints,  which  may 
be  pursued.     Dr.  Nicholls,  at  the  beginning  of  his  book  on  the 
Common  Prayer,  has  explained  the  first  fourteen  Articles,  and 
in  some  respects  very  successfully.    Bingham,  about  the  French 
Protestant  Church,  may  be  read  with  satisfaction,  as  to   those 
things  which  relate  to  Protestant  dissenters10. 

211  Dr.  John  Surges  may  be  considered  as   a   writer  on  those 


7  Book  III.  chap.  vii.  sect.  5. 

8  See  before,  Book  III.  chap.  vi.  sect. 
And  Ill.ix.  1. 


9  Book  III.  chap.  vii.  sect.  ft.     And 
III.  ix.  1. 

10  This  is  published  separate. 

.11 2 


4H-1- 


ARTICLES     OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  Illtl'od.  7- 


Articles  about  which  he  expressed  his  doubts  to  the  heads  of  the  II. 
Church.     And  his  remarks  are  worth  reading. 

Information  may  be  derived  from  NeaVs  History  of  the 
Puritans1;  only  allowance  must  be  made  for  his  prejudices  in 
favour  of  those  people,  of  whom  he  himself  was  one. 

This  list  may  perhaps  hereafter  be  enlarged  ;  I  mean  of  the 
writers  on  the  Articles  known  to  me2. 

I  will  conclude  with  the  mention  of  Bishop3  Burnet.  I 
have  not  lately  read  his  work  on  the  Articles ;  but  it  seems  the 
most  esteemed  of  any.  He  must  have  been  possessed  of 4  matter 
for  a  very  masterly  exposition  ;  and  I  should  think,  with  his 
theological  and  historical  knowledge,  he  might  have  put  his 
readers  more  in  the  place  of  the  compilers  than  he  has  done. 
Probably,  though  our  religion  has  always  had  its  opposers,  he 
was  not  so  much  pressed  as  we  are  now.  He  professes5  to  be  a 
collector  ;  and,  in  truth,  it  seems  as  if  he  might  sometimes  have 
made  a  little  philosophical  reasoning  of  great  service.  Those 
who  prepared  the  Articles  might  not  reason  in  form  ;  but  they 
reasoned  nicely,  though  silently  ;  and  some  metaphysics,  well 
applied,  would  bring  our  minds  nearer  to  the  state  of  theirs6. 
His  reading  was  judicious  and  extensive;  but,  when  he  got  212 
into  the  mazes  of  different  opinions,  he  seems  to  have  wanted 
a  clue.  But  I  will  read  his  work  again.  Certainly  our  Church 
is  much  obliged  to  him  ; — nevertheless,  a  work  much  inferior 
might  be  useful,  after  a  change  of  circumstances. 

7-  After  what  has  been  said,  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the 
third  Book  (at  the  close  of  the  first  section),  on  the  use  of  his 
tory  in  clearing  up  the  obscurity  of  any  expressions  in  our 
Articles,  by  shewing  us  the  views  of  those  who  compiled  them, 
and  the  circumstances  to  which  they  meant  to  refer,  it  will  not 
seem  strange  if  I  endeavour  to  open  the  subject  of  each  Article 
by  some  historical  remarks.  Nothing,  I  am  persuaded,  can  be 
more  effectual  in  taking  off  any  apparent  uncouthness,  or  in 
making  the  reasonings,  which  follow,  appear  interesting  and 
important.  Yet,  before  such  reasonings  occur,  it  will  generally 


1  In  Grey's   Notes  on   Hudibras,   an 
Answer  to  Neal  is  often  referred  to. 

2  I  have  seen   other   writings  on  the 
Articles  mentioned  in  the  catalogues  of 
booksellers,  but  I  have  neglected,  I  per 
ceive,  to  enter  them  here. 

3  Scotch— died  1715. 

4  See  his  Preface. 


5  Pref.  p.  xv. 

6  I  reasoned  simply,  from  the  nature 
of  things,  on  the  subjects  of  voluntary 
actions,  and  predestination,  and  I  think 
my    reasonings    have    developed    some 
thoughts  and  ideas   which  were  in   the 
minds  <ff  the  reformers,  though  not  drawn 
out  into/0>-w. 


IV.  1.]  THE     HOLY     TRINITY. 

II.  be  found  needful  to  give  an  explanation  of  some  expressions, 
though  even  explanation  must  be  in  a  good  measure  historical. 
Thus  prepared,  we  may  come  to  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  the 
several  propositions  contained  in  each  Article ;  but,  as  a  long 
time  has  elapsed  since  the  last  publication  of  our  Articles,  and 
as  many  changes  have  taken  place,  both  in  mens  notions  and 
situations,  it  will  be  satisfactory  to  compare  the  age  of  the  Re 
formation  with  our  own  ;  and  so  to  make  an  application^  of  what 
may  have  been  said,  to  the  present  state  of  things.  Of  what 
parts  such  application  should  consist,  will  best  appear  when  we 
first  come  to  make  one.  In  some  Articles,  which  now  seem  to 
us  of  but  secondary  importance,  this  method  may  not  be  con 
stantly  observed  in  all  its  strictness. 

In  this    fourth  Book,  every  Article  may   be   conceived   to 
make  a  chapter. 


213  ARTICLE    I. 

OF   FAITH   IN   THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 

THERE  is  but  one  living  and  true  God,  everlasting,  without 
body,  parts,  or  passions ;  of  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  good 
ness;  the  maker  and  preserver  of  all  things,  both  visible  and 
invisible.  And  in  the  unity  of  this  Godhead  there  be  three 
Persons,  of  one  substance,  power,  and  eternity ;  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 


I  cannot  enter  upon  such  a  work  as  the  consideration  of  the 
Articles  of  our  Church,  without  some  expressions  of  diffidence  ; 
nor  without  claiming  a  right  to  retract  any  opinion  which  im 
provement  in  reasoning  and  knowledge  may,  at  any  time,  shew 
me  is  groundless.  Let  not  this  be  deemed  affectation:  it  would 
really  be  painful  to  me  not  to  indulge  myself  in  some  such 
declaration  ;  and  indeed  it  is  only  saying,  now  we  enter  on  our 
present  subject,  what  was  said  on  the  first  entrance  on  our  whole 
plan7.  It  is  only  expressing  a  temper,  which  has  been  recom 
mended  as  always  proper  in  the  discussion  of  doctrines  above 
human  comprehension8.  It  has  indeed  seldom  happened  to  me 
to  retract  an  opinion  ;  which  I  impute  to  reasoning  with  sim- 

'  Hook  I.  chap.  i.  sect.  li.  *  IJook  III.  chap.  x.  sect.  15. 


486 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  i.  i. 


plicity,  and  endeavouring  not   to  deceive  myself,  in  order  to  II. 
defend  any  received  or  established  doctrine. 

The  principal  thing  in  which  I  feel  myself  (and  every  one  214 
must  feel  himself)  deficient  is  history.  Indeed,  I  do  not  see  how 
any  one  can  ever  attain  such  a  knowledge  in  history  as  might 
be  wished;  or  such  as  has  before  been  briefly  described — of 
facts,  opinions,  passions.  Yet  it  is  history  which  is  to  give  us, 
as  was  very  lately  observed,  the  design  of  each  Article;  and  the 
particular  expressions  are  to  be  interpreted  by  the  design,  as  a 
statute  by  its  preamble.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  treating  on  our  first 
Article,  enters  into  discussions  of  natural  religion.  They  seem 
to  me  unseasonable ;  though  nothing  can  be  more  valuable  than 
good  discussions  on  that  subject.  Articles  of  faith  must  turn 
on  interpretations  of  Scripture.  The  Unity  of  God  is  indeed 
to  be  proved,  because  it  makes  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity;  but  on  principles  of  revealed  religion.  The  design  of 
the  first  Article  is,  to  guard  against  all  errors  and  heresies  of 
Christians  with  regard  to  the  Holy  Trinity ;  as  the  title  suffi 
ciently  declares. 

1.  I  am  now  therefore  to  enter  on  the  difficult  subject  of 
the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  And  here  it 
seems  proper  first  to  say  something  of  some  notions  which  have 
been  ascribed  to  heathens,  in  a  degree  resembling  ours.  Mr. 
Voltaire  mentions  as  what  have  been,  in  some  sort,  three  deities 
in  one,  Jupiter,  Neptune,  Pluto ;  and  again,  Isis9  Osiris, 
Horus ;  and  Birma,  Brama,  Visnou.  I  think  it  is  said  that 
Servetus  compared  our  Trinity  to  Geryon\  Dr.  Potter  ob 
serves  that  three-  was  a  sacred  number. 

These  it  may  not  be  worth  while  to  dwell  upon.  Jupiter  215 
seems  to  have  been  God  of  all  above  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
Neptune  of  the  sea,  Pluto  of  all  under  the  earth  ;  but  their 
unity  does  not  appear  to  have  been  insisted  on.  The  notions 
of  Plato  seem  to  approach  nearer  ours;  and,  on  other  accounts, 
to  be  better  worth  considering.  Bishop  Horsley  recommends3 
the  study  of  his  works.  Heathens,  Jews,  and  Christians,  have 
highly  extolled  him.  Cicero  de  Natura  Deorum4  seems  to 


1  For  Geryon,  see  Spence's  Polymetis, 
the  ninth  of  Hercules's  labours,  and  the 
16th  Dialogue,  about  the  Lower  World. 
In  that  Dialogue  are  several  instances  of 
Triads,  p.  272:  (see  also  p.  284);  or 
Abridgment,  p.  17o.  Cerberus  (Spence) 
represented  past,  present,  and  future. 


Spence  says,  in  Pref.  that  the  Romans 
had  three  principal  deities.  There  is 
a  Diana  Triformis :  Abr.  of  Spence, 
p.  37.  Horace  ( Od.  ii.  xiv.)  calls  Geryon 
tcr  amplus.  Virgil  has  tergeminus. 

2  Potter's  Antiquities,  i.  358. 

3  In  his  Charge.          4  Lib.  ii.  cap.  12. 


IV.  i.  1.]  THE     HOLY    TRINITY. 

II.  speak  only  a  general  opinion,  when  he  calls  him  "quendam 
Deum  philosophorum."  The  Jews  are  said  to  have  studied  and 
imitated  him  ;  particularly  Philo5.  Many  eminent  Christians 
have  admired  and  commended  him.  Allix0  says,  on  account  of 
his  morals;  but  Jerom  and  Augustin  speak  more  with  relation 
to  his  reasoning  and  doctrines.  Jerom  says  that  he  is  "  divi- 
num7,  profundum,  nee  a  juvenilibus  intelligi  posse."  Augustin 
seems  to  declare  that  he  himself  should  not  (when  he  left  the 
Manicheans)  have  professed  the  Divinity  of  the  Logos,  and 
that  the  word  was  really  made  flesh,  if  he  had  not  read  the 
Platonists.  This  he  says  in  his  Confessions*,  which  seem  to 
be  a  sort  of  continued  prayer;  ascribing  his  meeting  with  them 
to  the  Divine  Providence  : — "  Et  primo  (tu)  volens  ostendere 
mihi, — quod  Verbum  tuum  caro  factum  est,  et  habitavit  inter 

216  homines,  procurasti  mihi,  per  quemdam  hominem, — Platonico- 
rum  libros  ex  Graeca  lingua  in  Latinam  versos.  Et  ibi  legi, 
non  quidem  his  verbis,  sed  hoc  idem  omnino  multis  et  multipli- 
cibus  suaderi  rationibus,  quod  in  principio  erat  Verbum,"  &c. 
It  is  observed,  that  Chrysostom  speaks  as  much  against  Plato 
as  Augustin  for  him.  Dacier  solves  the  difficulty  by  saying, 
that  Augustin,  See.  commend  the  doctrines  of  Plato,  as  leading 
to  Christianity,  and  preparing  the  mind  for  it ;  and  Chrysos 
tom,  &c.  reprobate  the  morals  of  Plato,  not  as  being  bad,  but 
as  claiming  to  equal  the  morals  of  Christianity,  and  render 
Christianity  needless.  (Dae.  Disc,  on  Plato,  p.  13,  English.) 
Dacier  observes,  that  when  the  Jewish  prophets  ceased,  Plato 
arose.  To  what  height  some  persons  have  carried  their  notions 
of  him,  one  may  see  in  Dacier1  s  account  of  Marsilius  Ficinus ; 
(Engl.  p.  159,  also  p.  141,  about  Augustin,  &c.)  where  Dacier 
disclaims  Plato's  foretelling  the  sufferings  of  Christ  (pp.  5  and 
6).  I  doubt  not  but  there  are  very  noble  doctrines  in  Plato, 
and  fine  and  charming  sentiments ;  but  these  are  scattered,  dis 
persed,  and  mixed  with  many  things  strange  (if  not  immoral, 
pp.  51,  52,  Dacier),  fanciful,  unintelligible:  so  that  very  dif- 
,  ferent  sorts  of  men  might  be  Platonists,  as  they  took  their 
notions  and  feelings  from  the  better  or  worse  parts  of  Plato's 
writings.  Cicero,  Mr.  Gibbon  observes,  did  not,  in  his  Book 
de  Natura  Deorum,  take  notice  of  any  Platonic  Trinity.  He 

5  See  afterwards  sect.  3.  Note  about  7  Ad  Jovin.  (quoted  by  Vossius,  about 

Numenius.  Plato.) 

fi  P.  355,  chap,  xxiii.  of  his  .Tews  8  Confess.  7-  9.  13,  14.  and  8.  '2,  3. 
against  Unitarians.  quoted  Lard.  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  541. 


4<88  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  '  1.   1. 


might  consider  the  idea  as  too  indefinite,   and  rank  it  amongst  II. 
the   Platonic  unintelligibles.      (Plato  designedly  obscure,  Dae. 
pp.  72,  140  ;   and  Warb.  Div.  Leg.) 

Some1  infidels  have  affected  to  call  all  Christians  Platonists  ; 
as  if  they  had  no  doctrines,  or  but  few  relating  to  the  nature  217 
of  God,  except  what  they  had  derived  from  Plato.  Of  this  we 
shall  take  no  farther  notice  at  present  than  to  observe,  that  the 
mere  charge  must  make  the  knowledge  of  Plato's  notions  inte 
resting  to  the  learned  Christian. 

I  will  now  mention  a  few  Trinities  such  as  Mr.  Voltaire 
takes,  as  I  remember,  from  Plato's  Timceus  chiefly,  and  from 
his  other  works  —  Parmenides  ;  Epinomis.  If  I  wished  to  make 
any  nice  deductions  from  them,  I  should  certainly  refer  you  to 
the  original  ;  but  that  would  detain  us  a  longer  time,  without 
making  us  amends. 

Unbegotten2,  auro  ayaOov  —  first  understanding  —  first  life. 

First  cause  —  reason  —  animal  life  or  spirit. 

Plan  (Voltaire's  interpretation)  —  execution  —  animation. 

Aoyo?  evSidOeros3  —  Word  internal  —  Aoyos  TrpcxpopiKos,  — 
Word  external,  —  World,  or  Spirit  of  World. 

God—  Word—  World. 

Power  —  wisdom  —  goodness. 

Indivisible  —  divisible  —  both  indivisible  and  divisible. 

Demiurge  —  Idee  Archetype  —  universal  mind. 

This  serves  to  shew  in  what  manner  Plato  runs  into  triads  -- 
His  ear,  or  his  fancy,  not  his  reason,   I  should  think,  led  him 
into  these4.      There  is   more  foundation  in  reason,  in  his  triad  218 
relating  to  the  mind:   according  to  Cicero5, 

Ratio  —  Ira  —  C  upiditas. 

But  his  ear  and  fancy  are  very  much  guided  by  numbers, 
as  any  one  may  see  in  his  Timaeus6  ;  or  in  Diogenes  Laertius. 

1  Voltaire,  quarto,  vols.  xxiv.  xxvi.    i    English  translation  from  his  French. 
xxvu.      See    Contents.      From    whom          3  See  Theoph.  Antioch.  p.  81,  Oxon. 

1684. 


Mr.  Gibbon  seems  to  take  his  opinion, 
vol.  ii.  4to,  p.  237,  &c. 

2  Pope  has,  First  good,  first  perfect, 


4  Epiphanius  treats   the   ancient  hea 
then  sects  of  philosophers  as  so  many 


and  first  fair, — or  something  near  that,  j  heresies;  at  the  beginning  of  his  Book  of 
And  there  is  something  to  the  present  Heresies.  In  speaking  of  Plato,  he  says, 
purpose,  Dacier,  p.  140.  The  Christian  that  he  held  a  first  CLLTLOV,  a  second,  and 


Fathers  believed  that  Plato  had  an  idea 
of  the  Trinity,  p.  141. 

N.  B.  Our  references  to  Dacier  are 
to  his  accounts  of  Plato,  prefixed  to  his 
translation  of  some  select  Dialogues  into 
French.  The  pages  may  be  those  of  an 


a  third. 


5  Tusc.  Disp.  1.  10.    Smith's  Theory 
of  Moral  Sentiments  has,  I  think,  some 
thing  to  the  purpose.     Dacier,  p.  121. 

6  Numerum    quinarium    composition! 
animae  convenire,  tribus  de  causis,  arbi- 


IV.  i.  2.J 


THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 


489 


II.  As  I  mean  to  avoid  controversy  with  regard  to  Plato,  on 
his  very  indefinite  notions  about  the  Deity,  I  will  only  farther 
mention  a  few  things,  which  seem  to  have  been  in  a  great  mea 
sure,  if  not  wholly,  agreed  upon. 

It  seems  agreed,  that  Plato  (of  Athens,  about  430  years 
before  Christ),  when  he  professed  but  one  God,  has  spoken  of 
him  making  use  of  the  number  three7. 

It  seems  also  agreed  that  this  notion  of  a  triad  in  the  D:vi- 
nity  was  not  his  own  originally  ;  but  from  whom  he  derived  it 
is  disputed.  Infidels  say,  from  8Timaeus;  who  might  derive  it 
from  Orpheus :  the  orthodox  say,  from  the  Jews;  either  imme 
diately,  or  through  the  medium  of  Pythagoras  and  Parmenides9: 
some  include  Pherecydes. 

It  seems  also  agreed  that  Plato  had  not  distinct  ideas,  or  a 
fixed  system,  on  this  matter  : — "  De  Platonis  inconstantia  Ion- 
gum  est  dicere10."  His  imagination  seems  to  have  been  rich, 
219  and  his  feelings  warm,  which  must  have  greatly  affected  his 
disquisitions  on  mysterious  and  sublime  subjects.  Any  one 
may  say  this,  and  yet  admire  his  Apology  of  Socrates  ;  as  any 
one  may  neglect  the  natural  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  and  yet 
admire  his  Poetics  and  Rhetoric. 

I  can  conceive  that  it  must  have  been  a  delightful  thing  to 
have  lived  with  this  philosopher  (Plato),  the  friend  and  dis 
ciple  of  Socrates;  so  earnest  in  his  researches  after  knowledge, 
so  sweetly  cheerful,  so  warmly  benevolent ;  so  enriched  with 
ideal  beauty,  so  strong  and  powerful  in  reasoning  ! 

2.  We  will  now  pass  on  to  notions  ascribed  to  Jews.  The 
word  Elohim  or  Aleim,  having  a  plural  termination,  and  being 
used  with  a  verb  singular",  has  been12  thought  to  denote  some 
kind  of  plurality  in  the  Unity  of  God.  And  the  c&eru&tft Ia 
overshadowing  the  ark  have  been  thought  symbols  of  the  Tri 
nity.  Moreover,  it  has  been  ably  argued,  "  that  the  Jews  before 
Chris fs  time1*,  according  to  the  received  expositions  of  the  Old 


tramur.  Ficini  compendium  in  Timaeum, 
c.  27-  See  Plutarch  de  procreatione 
animae,  ex  Platonis  Timaco ;  and  Dacier, 
p.  103. 

7  Many  authors  might  be    consulted 
on   Plato:  as   Diogenes   Laertius,    Plu 
tarch,  Maximus  Tyrius,  Proclus,  John 
Baptist  Crispus,  Cudworth,  Brucker. 

8  See  Voltaire,  vol.  xiv.  quarto;  and 
(ribbon,  vol.  n.  p.  243,  quarto. 

9  See  Lardner's  Tests,  under  Nume- 


ii ins;  (a  Syrian,  not  improbably  before 
Christ;)  or  Lard.  Works,  vol.  vin. 
p.  168. 

10  Cic.  de  Nat.  Deor.  i.  12. 

11  Like  means  in  English. 

12  See  Allix's  Jews  against  Unitarians, 
p.  116,  or  chap.  ix. 

13  Parkhurst.    ni3— and  anbK— Lex. 
Buxt.   12mo,  p.   !")!>.     SO-MC   one  refers 
to  Le  Clerc's  Ars  Critica,  pp.  150 — 156, 
vol.  i.  M  Allix,  chap.  i.  p.  6. 


490  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  i.  3. 

Testament,  derived  from  their  fathers,  had  a  notion  of  a  plu-  II. 
rality  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Divine  Essence ;  and  that 
this  plurality  was  a  Trinity."  The  old  Jewish  books  or  writ 
ings  adduced,  as  containing  the  received  sense,  or  as  proving 
what  it  was,  are  some  of  our  Apocryphal  books,  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus,  &c.,  the  Chaldee  paraphrases,  and 
the  writings1  of  Philo. 

I  would  here  also  avoid  controversy  if  possible,  as  carrying  220 
us  too  much  out  of  our  way.  Therefore  I  will  suppose  that 
grammatical  criticism  leaves  it  in  doubt  whether  the  words  of 
the  Hebrew  language  do  clearly  imply  a  Trinity  in  the  Unity  ; 
yet  I  would  be  permitted  to  observe,  that  there  is  a  something 
in  the  Old  Testament  rather  varying  from  the  grand  funda 
mental  peculiarity  of  the  Mosaic  religion,  the  Unity  of  God ; 
and  that  obscure  notices  are  suitable  to  the  nature  and  genius 
of  a  preparatory  dispensation  ;  and  therefore  that  there  might 
be  an  obscure  intimation  of  a  Trinity.  The  coming  of  the 
Messiah  is  not  the  less  certainly  foretold,  because  it  was  at  first 
foretold  obscurely.  How  common  it  is  to  have  the  name  of 
the  Supreme  Deity  a  plural,  the  linguist  must  determine.  As 
the  general  end  of  the  religion  of  Moses  was  to  separate  the 
chosen  race  from  Polytheists,  the  teachers  of  it  must  have  had 
some  particular  end  in  view  in  not  always  using  those  names  of 
God  which  were  of  the  singular  number. 

3.  Having  then  taken  some  notice  of  notions  of  a  Trinity 
ascribed  to  heathens  and  Jews,  I  come  to  the  Christian  doc 
trine.  The  question  here  is,  whether  the  Christian  doctrine  is 
an  original  one,  or  borrowed  from  the  Platonists  in  Egypt  ? 
What  Mr.  Gibbon  says  may  seem  to  come  too  near  the  subject 
of  the  second  Article  to  be  dwelt  on  here ;  but  yet  his  main 
point  is  the  2 Trinity.  This  question  an  infidel  would  answer 
one  way,  a  believer  another.  An  infidel  would  say,  the  doc 
trine  is  borrowed:  St.  John  was  conversant  in  Platonic  writings, 
adopted  Platonic  notions,  with  the  term  Logos,  and  applied 
them  to  Christ.  Nor  does  it  avail  to  urge  that  he  was  con 
versant  only  in  Jewish  writings ;  for  those  old  Jewish  writ 
ings,  which  we  call  Apocryphal,  and  the  Paraphrases  of  the  221 
Old  Testament,  were  all  formed  (says  the  infidel)  in  the  Pla- 

1  Philo  has  a  sort  of  Trinity  near  the    [   the  comparison,  of  Plato :  '0  0pos 
beginning  of  his    work   about   Names, 
which  he  compares  with  the  three  palri- 


archs  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.    This 


2  Gibbon,  vol.  u.  p.  2^7,  &c. ;  or  202, 


cannot  have  been  the  idea,  or  at  least  not    j    quarto. 


IV.  i.  3.]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  491 

II.  tonic3  school  of  Alexandria ;  and  that  is  also  the  source  of  the 
notions  and  language  of  Philo.  On  the  contrary,  a  believer 
would  say,  the  Christian  doctrine  is  not  borrowed  from  any 
school  whatever  ;  it  is  revealed,  and  cannot  be  called  the  less 
original  for  having  been  obscurely  intimated  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  whether  by  the  construction  of  words,  or  by 
tradition,  partly  written,  partly  oral.  It  is  not  probable  that 
St.  John4,  a  fisherman,  read  Plato  or  his  followers;  or  that  he 
read  even  Philo.  The  term  he  uses,  Logos,  was  in  common  use 
amongst5  his  countrymen  ;  and,  though  it  was  to  be  found  in 
some  writings  which  might  have  been  composed  since  the  time 
of  Plato,  yet  it  was  used  by  Jews,  before  Plato  was  born6. 

Here  a  traffic  between  Judaism  and  Platonism  is  acknow 
ledged  on  both  hands  ;  and  the  only  question  is,  which  was  the 
lender,  and  which  was  the  borrower?  Perhaps,  on  such  a 
question,  the  proofs  being  at  a  great  distance,  each  side  will  re- 

222  tain  its  own  opinion ;  yet  it  may  be  worth  a  few  words  to  state 
the  ground  of  ours.  That  St.  John  got  his  notions  imme 
diately  from  the  Jews,  and  Jewish  writers,  and  Chaldee  pa 
raphrases,  will  scarcely,  I  think,  be  disputed.  The  question 
will  be,  whence  did  Jewish  writers  get  their  notions  ?  We 
say,  that  Plato  most  probably  borrowed  from7  the  Jews.  Waiv 
ing  particular  passages,  it  seems  best  to  observe,  that  this 
is  more  likely  than  that  the  Jews  should  borrow  any  of  their 


3  Gibbon,  vol.  11.  quarto,  p.  238. 

4  This  is  an  argument  in  the  character 
of  an  orthodox.     As  to  possibility,  one 
does  not  see  why  one,  who  could  write 


miah,   about  350   A.   Chr.     See   Allix, 
chap.  ii.  p.   27.   Plato  died   348  before 
Christ,  aet.  81.— BLATR. 
7  Dacier's  Plato,  Engl.  pp.  7,  8,  34, 


such  an  history  as  St.  John's  Gospel,  in    \  72,  83,  94;  (called  Egyptian)  100,  123; 

Greek,  might  not  possibly  read  Platonic  (woman  made  out  of  man)  141,  142,  &c. 

writers,   or  even   Plato  himself,  in  the  146.     Pherecydes   and  his  scholar  Py- 

original ;  or  Philo  ;  but  we  should  consi-  thagoras  mentioned  as  bringing  wisdom 

der  whether  leisure  would  allow  it,  or  into   Greece  from   the  East,   and   from 

circumstances  made  it  probable.     John  Egypt,    p.   67-     Pherecydes    a   Syrian ; 

was  a  young  man,  engaged  in  a  constant  Pythagoras's  country  uncertain, 
occupation ;    of   an    incurious    country ;          Here  might  be  placed  Numenius''s  ob- 

rather  likely  to  despise  heathens,  than  servation,  Ti  yap  ea-n  IlXa-rwj/  ij  MWO-JJS 

read  them.    He  knew  Greek  as  a  general  aVrt/ct^wj/ ;  "  What  is  Plato  but  Moses 

language,  but  he  was  no  Hellenist ;  nor  in  Greek  ?"  Numenius  was  a  Pythago- 
ever  lived  near  Alexandria.                          ]  rean  philosopher  ;    time  uncertain  ;    he 

5  Tillotson  on  John  i.  14.  might    live    before    Christ.     See  Lard. 

6  I  suppose  our  present  Chaldee  para-  Test.  chap.   xxxv.   (Works,  vol.  vur. 
phrases  may    not  be  much   older  than  p.  168);  called  by  Porphyry  a  Platonic, 
Christ ;  but  then  they  are  looked  upon  as  philosopher.    He  used  writings  of  Moses 
expressing  traditional  ideas  of  very  re-  and  the  prophets,  and  allegorized  some 
mote  antiquity;  ideas  at  least  as  old  as  of  them;  as  seems  clear  from  Origen — 
the  return  from  Chaldea,   under  Nehe-  Ibid. 


492  ARTICLES     OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  i.   3. 

more  important  doctrines  from  Plato:  —  1.  Because  Juda-  II. 
ism  had  been  established  above  a  thousand  years  before  Plato 
lived.  2.  Because  Judaism  was  a  national  religion,  Plato's 
only  what  may  be  called  a  personal  one.  It  is  more  likely, 
that  a  private  man  should  hear  of  and  adopt  the  religion  of 
a  nation,  than  that  a  nation  should  hear  of  and  adopt  the 
tenets  of  an  individual.  3.  Plato  was  curious  and  inquisitive 
after  different  religions  ;  the  Jews  were  incurious.  He  travelled 
into  Egypt  on  purpose  to  study  religion :  to  such  an  inquirer 
Judaism  must  have  been  always  within  reach  in  Egypt.  He 
travelled  into  Italy ;  and  where  the  Pythagorean  doctrines 
were  so  well  known  as  they  were  in  Magna  Grecia,  the  Jewish 
would  not  probably  be  wholly  unknown.  4.  It  is  allowable  to 
say,  that,  supposing  any  one  convinced  of  the  divine  origin  of  223 
the  religion  of  Moses,  such  an  one  could  not  think  that  religion 
the  borrower,  in  any  thing  fundamental;  and,  if  ever  religion 
could  prove  itself  divine,  by  its  mere  subsistence,  the  Jewish 
did1; — a  spiritual  religion  single  in  the  midst  of  idolatries — 
a  religion  founded  on  the  unity  of  God,  surrounded  on  all 
sides  by  various  species  of  polytheism  ;  its  professors  no  higher 
in  philosophy  or  arts  than  their  neighbours.  All  Jews  and 
Christians  therefore  must  believe  that  revealed  religion  did  not 
borrow  its  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  from  heathenism  ;  and  every 
proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  or  Christian  religion  must 
operate  as  an  argument  on  our  side  of  the  present  question. 
But  this  is  not  the  place  for  proving  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic 
religion.  Let  us  rather,  then,  observe,  that  to  require  us  to 
prove  how  Plato  borrowed  of  the  Hebrews,  is  unfair.  He  might, 
and  yet  it  might  be  impossible  for  us  to  tell  how,  at  this  time. 
Neither  is  it  at  all  likely  that  we  should  be  able  to  ascertain 
the  manner  in  which  different  religions  in  remote  times  mixed 
together.  We  do  not  say  Plato  was  a  Jew,  or  adopted  the 
Mosaic  religion  systematically ;  we  only  say,  he  borrowed 
from  that  as  well  as  other  religions ;  but  we  do  not  pretend  to 
point  out  the  particular  manner  in  which  the  Egyptian  and 
Oriental  philosophy,  the  tenets  of  Pythagoras  and  Plato,  de 
rived  perhaps  from  Timaeus,  Parmenides,  Pherecydes,  and  one 
knows  not  how  many  more,  mixed  themselves  in  Egypt2.  An 

1  Something  of  this   we  had  occasion  philosophy   were   much   the  same,   was 
to  produce  before.    Book  I.  chap.   xvi.  i    observed   in  the   Appendix    to  the  first 
sect.  fl.  Book,  sect.  12. 

2  That    the    Egyptian    and    Oriental 


IV.   i.   3.]  THE     HOLY    THINITV.  493 

II.  ingredient,  more  or  less,  might  make  a  great  difference;  and 

224  each  ingredient  might  be  infused  in  a  great  variety  of  propor 
tions.      Religious3  tenets,    and  so   also  political  opinions,   get 
mixed  and  blended  together  before  our  eyes,   in  modern  life, 
till  we  can   analyse  none    of  them   exactly.      Nevertheless,  we 
may    conceive,    that    if    the    Jews,   in    Egypt,    or    elsewhere, 
found  that    Plato,  or  his   followers,    admired,  imitated,  or  in 
any  part  adopted  their  religion,  they  would  be  much  inclined 
to  favour  his:   and  his  religion  is  of  so  noble  and  captivating 
a   nature,   as    to    tempt  both   Jews  and  Christians,    of   more 
lively  imaginations  and  warm  affections,  to  mix  its  tenets  with 
their  own. 

The  conclusion  seems  to  be,  that  we  may  venture  to  proceed 
in  our  old  path  ;  and  look  upon  Plato  as  having  borrowed  from 
Judaism,  or,  at  least,  on  Judaism  and  Christianity  as  not  hav 
ing  borrowed  from  Plato,  though  Jews  and  Christians  have 
mixed  some  degree  of  Platonistn  with  Judaism  and  Christianity. 
And  this  method  of  regarding  the  subject  must  make  us  con 
sider  our  own  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  coming  immediately 
from  Heaven. 

We  may  well  claim  it  as  our  own,  on  the  footing  of  its 
being  a  single  one,  and  of  a  determinate  sort.  Plato  was  aim 
ing  at  something4  he  knew  not  what;  and  made  a  number  of 
different  trinities,  as  his  ear  or  fancy  led  him  ;  and,  if  we  had 
followed  the  ear,  or  the  imagination,  we  also  should  have  had  a 
multitude  of  trinities  ;  but  ours  is  one,  and  only  one.  His 
were  formed  out  of  his  imagination  ;  ours  arises  out  of  the  na- 

225  ture  of  the  thing,  according  to  principles  of  reason  and  utility. 
God   would  instruct  and  protect    mankind   in   their   religious 
capacities.    Who  are  to  appear  as  principals  in  such  an  under 
taking  ?     First,  he  who  is  the  fountain  of  all  good  ;   next,  that 
personage  whom  he  commissions  as  actual  instructor,  who  is  to 
be  of  the  same  species  with  those  he  instructs;  and  lastly,  a 
perpetual  agent,  who  is  to  promote  with  constant  assiduity  the 
proper  effects,  the  success  of  the  instruction.     The  Sovereign, 
the  Instructor,  and  the  Resident,  are  the  persons  to  be  chiefly 
distinguished,  according  to  all  the  dictates  of  common  sense, 
whether  their  number  pleased  the  ear,   as  a  triad,  or  not5. 

3  The  dissenters  in    England,  popu-  4  Dacier's  Discourse  on   Plato,  p.  9, 

larly  so  called,  have  run  through  a  great  j   expresses   this  prettily,    relative  to  his 

many   variations   in   opinion.     The   ex-  '   aiming  at  something  indistinctly, 

pression,  "carried  about  by  every  wind  '•       5  Suppose  a  sovereign  wanted  to  civilize 

of  doctrine,"  implies  such  unsteadiness.  a   newly    discovered    island,    would   not 


494  ARTICLES    OF     BELIGIOX.  [IV.  i.   4. 

We  have  given  into  an  argument  relating  only  to  St.  John,  II. 
as  if  he  alone  laid  down  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  As  a 
Trinity*  the  other  evangelists  lay  it  down  equally;  and  indeed 
proofs  of  the  Divinity  of  the  several  persons  are  taken  from 
St.  Paul  more  than  from  St.  John.  But,  while  we  are  only 
comparing  the  Christian  with  heathen  notions,  the  Divinity 
of  the  Persons  does  not  seem  to  make  a  part  of  our  consider 
ations.  Yet  the  Divinity  of  the  several  persons  is  a  principal 
matter  in  the  Christian  religion ;  and  that  is  signified  in  many 
parts  of  Scripture  which,  taken  separately,  give  no  idea  of  a 
Trinity. 

4.  We  now  come  to  the  inquiry,  whether  in  any  sense  it 
may  be  asserted  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  did  not  226 
exist  till  the  fourth  century?  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that, 
if  we  waive  the  dignity  of  the  Persons  who  composed  the 
Trinity,  and  only  speak  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as 
making  a  triad,  without  considering  them  as  in  the  Unity  of 
the  Godhead,  there  was  a  Trinity  from  the  earliest  times  of 
Christianity.  In  the  New  Testament,  these  three  are  introduced 
jointly  forty-eight  times,  according  to  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke's 
enumeration.  And  it  does  seem  that  the  word  Trinity  was  at 
first  used  for  mere  convenience,  to  avoid  a  repetition  of  Father,. 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  as  the  word  Triumvirate  was  used  to 
avoid  the  repetition  of  Pompey,  Caesar,  and  Crassus;  or  of 
Octavius,  Anthony,  and  Lepidus.  The  very  early  use  of  dox- 
ologies  confirms  this,  as  well  as  the  form  of  baptism.  Our 
question  properly  is,  whether,  before  the  fourth  century,  the 
divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  was  acknowledged  in  that 
distinct  and  full  manner,  in  which  it  is  now  acknowledged;  and 
whether  the  Divinity  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  was 
publicly,  distinctly,  and  expressly  recognized,  and  combined 
with  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  in  the  same  manner  in  which  it 
is  at  present  ? 

When  IJirst}  read  Lectures  upon  this  Article,  it  appeared 
to  me  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  had  scarcely  reached 
such  maturity,  and  got  such  general  establishment  in  the 
Church,  before  the  fourth  century  ;  but  a  controversy  between 


these  characters  or  persons  be  natural  ? 
and  supposing  it  practicable,  not  hinder 
ed  by  the  perverseness  and  wickedness  of 
man,  for  the  son  of  the  sovereign  to  go  to 
the  island,  and  make  one  with  the  island 
ers,  would  not  that  be  best  ?  and  every 


resident  or  vicegerent,  though  a  common 
man,  is  conceived  as  constantly  commu 
nicating  with  both  sovereign  and  sub 
jects.  See  sect.  20. 


In  1781. 


IV.  i.   4  ]  THK    HOLY    Til  IN  [TV.  495 

II.  Dr.  Priestley  and  some  eminent  persons  of  our  Church,  on  the 
antiquity  of  doctrines  by  which  the  Socinians  are  distinguished 
from  us,  occasioned  some  diffidence.  I  read  some  parts  of  it ; 
but  not  the  whole,  so  as  to  form  a  judgment  of  every  argument 

227  made  use  of.     However,  I  attended  the  more  carefully  to  the 
expressions  made  use  of  by  such  ancient  Christian  writers  as 
fell  in  my  way.     If  my  principal  business  was  now  merely  that 
of  an  historian,  I  should  consider  the  controversy  more  exactly: 
at  present  I  can  only  say,  that  I  do  not  seem  to  have  changed 
my  opinion  in  any  great  degree,  if  at  all. 

My  general  idea  was,  that  the  early  Christians  took  words 
and  phrases  of  Scripture,  and,  by  the  guidance  of  good  feelings 
and  plain  sense,  used  them  in  right  circumstances,  without 
forming  speculative  propositions  out  of  them,  or  combining 
them  into  systems,  or  even  syllogisms.  They  might  therefore, 
in  some  sense,  be  said  to  know  the  doctrines,  and  profess  them ; 
but,  in  some  sense,  they  might  be  said  not  yet  to  have  moulded 
them  into  perfect  form.  I  conceived  that  controversy  during 
the  first  three  centuries  had  been  the  occasion  of  their  being 
examined  with  a  view  to  speculative  truth  ;  of  errors  being 
rejected  one  after  another,  till  perfect  orthodoxy  had  at  length 
been  ascertained. 

Being  not  free  from  doubt  about  a  thing  so  little  admitting 
of  precision,  I  was  glad  to  meet  with  a  passage  from  Augustin, 
(born  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century)  which  seemed  to 
express  my  own  opinion: — "Multa  latebant  in  Scripturis,  et 
cum  prsecisi  essent  (excommunicated)  haeretici,  quaestionibus 
agitaverunt  Ecclesiam  Dei.  Aperta  stint  quae  latebant,  et  in- 
tellecta  est  voluntas  Dei.  Numquid  enim  perfecte  de  TRINI- 
TATE  tractatum  est  antequam  oblatrarent  Ariani~  ?  Numquid 

228  perfecte    de  pcenitentid  tractatum    est    antequam    obsisterent 
Novatiani  ? — Sic  non  perfecte    de   baptismate   tractatum   est, 
antequam  contradicerent  foris  positi,  rebaptizatores. — Nee  de 
Unitate  Christi  (of  the  body  or  Church  of  Christ),  nisi  postea- 
quam  separatio  ilia  urgere  caepit  fratres  infirmosV 

This  passage  will  give  me  courage  to  proceed.  Theophilus, 
bishop  of  Antioch,  (placed  as  flourishing  in  the  year  181),  uses 
the  word  Trinity  or  Triad.  He  is  speaking  of  the  six  days 

3  Tertullian  seems  to  have  disputed  I  all  Tertullian's  writings :  both  Africans, 

with  the  Unitarians  (  Praxeas,  &c. )  pro-  8  This  passage  is  quoted  in  Forbes's 

perly  about  the  Trinity;    but  this  was  Instruct.  Histor.  Theol.  8.20.  4.  (but  be 

controversy;  and  then  Aug.  says,  num-  aware  of  false  prints   in  the   ni 


quid  perfecte.  ?     Aug.  must  have  known 


The  little  omissions  are  his. 


496  ARTICLES     OF     KEI.IGIOX.  [IV.    i.    4. 

of  the  Creation.  The  first  three,  he  says,  are  types  of  the  II. 
Triad,  God,  his  Word,  and  his  Wisdom}  ;  the  fourth  is  a  type 
of  man.  The  reason  he  assigns  is,  because,  during  the  first 
three  days,  there  were  no  luminaries :  God,  his  Word,  and  his 
Wisdom,  wanted  none.  On  the  fourth,  the  luminaries  were 
made,  which  were  suitable  to  man.  But  we  find  Aoyov  e<rvcv 
vTrovpyov2 :  and  I  think  there  is  not  sufficient  reason  for  calling 
this  triad  our  present  Trinity  in  its  full  form.  It  seems  rather 
to  answer  the  description  given  above8 ;  and  not  to  be  more 
explicit  than  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  And  the  more 
fanciful  the  occasion  of  introducing  it,  the  less  precise  are  the 
ideas  to  be  deemed,  which  are  annexed  to  it.  The  word  Tpid?4 
would  not  convey  to  Autolycus,  or  to  any  reader  of  Theophilus, 
what  the  word  Trinity  would  to  us. 

It  would  confirm  the  general  notion  just  now  mentioned,  to  229 
conceive  how  it  is  likely  that  controversy  should  bring  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Trinity  into  its  present  form.  After  what  has  been 
said,  it  is  natural  to  ask,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not 
immediately  taken  from  Scripture,  when  ChristiansjErstf  studied 
it,  how  did  it  become  general  ?  The  Scriptural  expressions 
concerning  the  Father,  when  compared  with  those  concerning 
the  Son,  and  with  those  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  with 
those  texts  which  strongly  insist  on  the  Unity  of  God,  must 
occasion  difficulties.  Men  would  not  be  content  to  use  the 
expressions  separately,  as  the  Scriptures  do ;  but  would  bring 
them  together,  and  endeavour  to  make  a  system  out  of  them, 
so  as  to  solve  all  difficulties.  They  could  seldom  do  this  with 
out  getting  into  other  difficulties  ;  which  would  be  opposed,  and 
in  return  defended.  One  man,  fearing  to  infringe  upon  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  all  rational  religion,  the  Unity  of  God, 
would  neglect  all  distinction  of  persons :  this  Sahellius  and 
those  called  Patripassians,  Praxeas,  Sic.,  are  supposed  to  have 
done ;  and  so  to  have  taught  one  God  with  three  names. 
Another,  convinced  that  the  Scriptures  make  a  distinction  be 
tween  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  seeing  that  distinc 
tion  in  a  strong  light,  in  order  to  secure  it,  makes  a  subordina- 

1  Ad  Autolycum,  lib.  ii.  p.  106.    ed.    i       4  H.  Stephens  does  not,  in  his  Greek 
Ox.  1684.  Lexicon,  refer,    under   T/oms,   to   either 


2  P.  81.  edit.  Oxon.  1684.  See  also 
p.  9,  where  Theoph.  seems  to  make  <£o>s, 
Ao'yos,  TTveu/ua,  <ror/>ta,  only  attributes  of 


Plato  or  Philo.    Mr.  Gibbon  says,  p.  242, 
note  31,  that  T/oias  was  already  (before 


181 )   "  familiar  in  the  schools  of  philo- 
the  Supreme  (rod.  j    sophy."     It  is  not  in  Du  Cange.     It  in 

•'  At  the  beginning  of  this  section.  in  Suicer. 


IV.   i.    k]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  4-97 

II.  tion — makes  the  Son5  subordinate  to  the  Father,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  the  Son  :  this  did  Arius.  A  third,  shocked  at  the 
idea  of  an  inequality,  determines  that  the  Son  must  be  equal 
to  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  Son;  and  insists  upon 

230  this  in  such  unqualified   terms  as  to  constitute  in  effect  three 
distinct  Gods.      This  some  of  those  Fathers  are  said6  to  have 
done,  who  are  commonly  called  orthodox.     When  the  moderate 
and  reasonable  Christians  saw  men  running  into  error  in  these 
different  ways,  they  would  naturally  endeavour  to  check  them ; 
and  the  expressions,  which  they  fixed  upon  in  order  to  answer 
that  end,  would  contain  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  we  now 
profess   it.       These  expressions   would   serve   to  retain    those 
within  the  society  of  the  orthodox  who  were  tractable,  and  keep 
them  from  being  carried  to  and  fro  with  every  wind  of  doctrine; 
and  would   keep   the  intractable  at  a  distance,  so  that  they 
would  breed  no  confusion.     Whatever  of  this  sort  was  carried 
on  in  the  first  three  centuries,  seems  to  have  occasioned  no  dis 
turbance  till  \\\Q  fourth. 

Bishop  Burnet  says7,  that  "this  doctrine"  "was  universally 
received  over  the  whole  Christian  Church,  long  before  there 
was  either  a  Christian  prince  to  support  it  by  his  authority,  or 
a  council  to  establish  it  by  consent."  The  first  Christian  prince 
was  Constantine  the  Great,  who  from  306  gradually  increased 
his  protection  of  the  Christians ;  but  did  not  give  it  fully  till 
about  two  or  three  years  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  held  in 
325.  He  was  not  baptized  till  a  few  days  before  his  death  in 
337.  The  Council  alluded  to  by  Bishop  Burnet  must  be  the 
Niccne.  He  does  not  say,  before  the  Christians  had  a  council, 
but,  "before  they  had  a  council  to  establish  it  by  consent;" 
meaning,  I  suppose,  &  general  council.  The  word  "receded" 

231  seems  to  want  explaining.      If  the  doctrine  was  received  as  an 
established  doctrine,  why  was  it  not  put  in  some  confession  of 
faith,  or  stated  by  such  councils  as  were  held  before  the  fourth 
century  ?    The  doctrine  was  far  from   being  received,  in  this 
sense :   nay,  in  my   opinion,  even  the  Nicene  Council  did  not 
establish  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  though  it  might  that  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christ.     Indeed,  Bishop  Burnet8  owns  that  the 

s  The  Apologist  for  Orif/cn  mentioned  account  of  the  doctrines  of  Origen.   Hist. 

by  Photius,  Cod.  117,  iniputeshis  having  Lit.  i.  p.  1 1"». 

made  the  Son  unequal  to  the  Father,  to  °  See  (iibbon,  vol.  n.  p.  '24!»,  note  51. 

his  zeal  against  the  error  of  Sabellius;  Allix,  Pref.  p.  viii.    Bingham,  11.  :t.  4. 

and    says,    that    Origen's    other    errors  7  Bp.  Burnet,  towards  the  close  of  the 

were  owing  to  a  like  cause.     See  Cave's  lirst  Article,  p.  49,  8vo.       '    P.  4!t.  ;;\<>. 

VOL.  I.  32 


498 


ARTICLES     OF     RELIGION. 


[IV.  i.  4. 


doctrine  of  the  Trinity  can  only  be  deduced  from  the  Nicene  II. 
Creed  as  a  consequence.  But  drawing  a  consequence,  in  things 
above  our  reason,  is  making  a  new  doctrine.  What  indeed  is 
making  any  doctrine  but  drawing  a  consequence  from  some  ex 
pressions  of  Scripture  ?  Sometimes,  in  order  to  make  a  doctrine, 
one  need  not  go  so  far — one  need  only  arrange1  expressions. 
If,  by  a  doctrine's  being  "received"  is  only  meant  its  being 
mentioned  in  writings,  or  the  parts  of  it,  from  which  it  may  be 
made  up,  I  suppose  the  doctrine  was  received  in  that  sense. 
At  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council,  many  expressions  were  pro 
bably  to  be  found  in  2  books,  denoting  the  relations  of  the 
several  Persons  of  the  Trinity  to  each  other.  Filiation,  genera 
tion,  or  possibly  even  procession*,  were  expressed  in  one  way 
or  other.  The  question  is,  whether,  in  any  public  confession  of 
faith,  they  found  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  exactly  as  we  profess 
it  ?  Tertullian,  in  his  controversy  with  Praxeas  the  Unitarian 4,  232 
comes  the  nearest  it 5,  if  not  quite  up  to  it ;  but,  supposing  one 
writer,  in  controversy,  to  hit  off  expressions  a  few  times  con 
taining  the  very  doctrine  afterwards  professed  publicly,  that 
falls  far  short  of  that  doctrine  being  solemnly  professed  in  a 
church,  though  it  is  a  step  towards  it.  There  are  many  say 
ings  in  modern  controversial  writers,  which  are  estimated  no 
higher  than  the  illustrations  of  a  private  man  ;  and  are  not 
admitted  into  any  confessions,  creeds,  articles,  catechisms ; 
and  yet  they  may  represent  the  sense  of  Scripture  very  justly. 
But,  till  notions  are  publicly  professed,  the  generality  of  men  are 
ignorant  of  them  ;  and  it  is  not  known  for  certain  whether  such 
notions  ever  will  become  doctrines,  properly  so  called.  Con 
troversy  may  more  properly  be  said  to  be  bringing  the  doctrines 
into  form,  than  to  have  already  established  them.  Warburton 
says  true  things  in  controversy,  which  cannot  be  called  received 


1  For  instance,  arranging  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  (as  they  are  not  always 
in  the  same  order  in  Scripture),  is  making 
doctrines  about  their  precedence. 

2  The  notion   of  Paul  of   Samosata, 
placed  in  260,  seems   too  indistinct   to 
found  history  upon.    It  relates  only  to 
Christ ;  and  Paul  abjured  or  recanted  his 
heresy.     However,    councils    did   meet. 
A  good  deal  seems  to  turn  on  Paul's  pri 
vate  character ;  which  was  probably  mis 
represented.     He    is    more    particularly 
mentioned,  Art.  ii.  sect.  6. 


3  Instances  may  be  seen  in  Clement, 
Ignatius,  Poly  carp  ;  or  in  Bingham,  13. 
2.  1,  &c. 

4  Cap.  2.  3.  13.    See  Bingham,  vol.  i. 
bottom  of  p.  572,  col.  2.  13.  2.  4. 

5  Dr.  Priestley  thinks  that  even  Ter 
tullian  had  not  the  same  idea  affixed  to 
the  word  Trinity  which  we  have.    Be 
cause,  though  in  one  passage  he  speaks 
as  if  he  had,  in  others  he  speaks  as  if  he 
had  not ;  whereas  a  modern  would  speak 
as  if  he  had,  in  all  passages. 


IV.  i.  4.]  THE     HOLY     TRIXITY.  199 

II.  doctrines ;   as,  that  there  is  no  promise  of  a.  future  state  in  the 
dispensation  of  Moses. 

Bingham*  says  several  things  of  weight,  to  prove  the  early 
reception  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  but  perhaps  nothing 
more  forcible  than  that  the  orthodox  were  reviled  by  the  Sabel- 
lians,  and  other  Unitarians,  as  Tritheists.  But  does  this  prove 
that  the  Trinity  was  fully  professed  ?  not  entirely.  Celsus 
reviled  Christians  for  being  Polytheists ;  does  it  therefore  fol- 

233  low  that  they  had  many  objects  of  worship 7  ?    It  seems  to  prove 
that   addresses  were  offered  up  to  Christ,  and  perhaps  to  the 
Holy  Spirit ;   but  these  might  be  offered  in  an  artless  and  affec 
tionate  manner,  without  speculative  system,  or  dogmatical  pre 
cision  ;   which  is  all  that  we  call  into  question.      These  very 
Sabellians,    &c.,    who   charged   the   Catholics   with    Tritheism, 
though  more  open  to  the  charge  themselves,  were  called  Patri- 
passians.      Would   they  allow  that  to  be  a  proof  that   they 
really  said  the  Father  suffered  on   the   Cross?  and  that  they 
made  no  distinction  whatever  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  ? 
It  is  very  unsafe  to  argue  upon  opprobrious  terms:   reviling  is 
rhetoric.      Moreover,  it  seems  possible  that  the   Catholics,  or 
orthodox,  might  restrain  the  forwardness  of  the  Sabellians  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  the  Arians  on  the  other,  before  the  right 
doctrine  was  fully  settled.  We  have  supposed  that  such  restrain 
ing  was  the  means  of  settling  the  right  doctrine.      You  may 
see  one  man  carry  a  notion  too  far  one  way,  another  run  into 
the   opposite  extreme ;   you  may  pronounce  both   in  fault  or 
error,  and  yet  never  determine  the  right  medium  precisely.      If 
this  be  so,  the  Catholics  might,  in  answer  to  their  opprobrious 
arguments,  be  called  Tritheists,  before  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri 
nity  could  be  said  to  have  come  to  maturity.      Indeed,  their 
being  called  Tritheists  as  much  proves  that  they  denied  the 
Unity  of  God,  as  that  they,  properly  speaking,  professed  the 
Trinity.     Besides,  it  should  be  considered  that  some  have  been 
really   Tritheists;  and  that    those  who  were  so,   were   as   far 
removed  from  the  true  doctrine  of  the   Trinity  as  Arians  or 

234  Sabellians.    If  we  are  to  conclude  any  thing  from  the  Catholics 
being  called   Tritheists,  why   not   that  they  were  really   Tri 
theists  ? 


6  13.  2.  2,  &c. 

7  The  heathens  spoke  of  Christians  as 
I'olytheists,  on  account  of  this  doctrine. 


clearly  revealed  to  the  Jews,  lest  they 
should  be  Polytheists.  Set.-  Lard.  Works, 
Index,  Trinity. 


Theodoret    says,    the    Trinity    was    not 

38 — '2 


500  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  i.  4. 

This  seems  the  proper  place  to  mention  the  Priscillianists^  II. 
they  being  reckoned  a  sort  of  Sabellians;  but  as  Mosheim  says, 
that  none  of  the  ancients  have  given  a  satisfactory  account  of 
them,  and  as  Lardner  found  it  necessary  to  collect  every  thing 
in  antiquity  concerning  them,  in  order  to  get  an  idea  of  them, 
there  being  no  writings  of  their  own  extant,  I  must  content 
myself  with  a  conjectural  solution  of  an  expression  in  the  Atha- 
nasian  Creed,  which  seems  to  be  levelled  at  their  error :  I  mean 
the  conclusion,  "So  there  is  one  Father,  not  three  Fathers;  one 
Son,  not  three  Sons ;  one  Holy  Ghost,  not  three  Holy  Ghosts." 
It  seems  not  improbable  that  the  Priscillianists,  as  a  sort  of 
Sabellians,  might  be  represented  as  so  completely  taking  away 
all  distinction  between  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  that  it  was 
the  same  thing  to  them  of  which  Person  any  thing  was  affirmed. 
Whatever  might  be  affirmed  of  the  Father,  might  be  affirmed 
equally  of  the  Son,  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  it  would  be 
deduced,  that  a  Sabellian  Trinity  consisted  of  "three  Fathers," 
or  "three  Sons,"  or  "three  Holy  Ghosts."  The  next  step  to 
which  would  be,  that  the  Priscillianists  made  three  Fathers,  and 
three  Sons,  and  three  Holy  Ghosts.  At  least,  I  see  no  better 
way  of  accounting  for  the  expression  of  Tpiis  irapa.K\r)Tovs  in 
the  second  anathema  of  the  Council  of  Bracara,  A.  u.  563 ;  or 
for  "  Trinitas  Trinitatis"  in  the  49th  Apostolical  Canon. 

Hitherto  we  have  referred  more  to  the  second  Person  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  than  to  the  third  :  we  may  therefore  take 
notice  of  the  notion  of  Erasmus1,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not 
called  God  till  the  fourth  century.  If  we  err  with  such  great  235 
authorities  as  Augustin  and  Erasmus,  we  shall  suffer  no  great 
disgrace.  We  are  not  indeed  now  speaking  immediately  of  the 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  yet  it  may  be  proper  here  to 
say  something  of  that  doctrine,  as  one  constituent  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  BinghanVs  chief  argument  against 
Erasmus  is,  that  adorations  were  paid  to  the  Holy  Ghost  long 
before  the  fourth  century.  It  is  not  here  wholly  improper  to 
say,  that,  though  the  Holy  Ghost  were  called  God  at  any  time, 
and  were  proved  to  be  God,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  was  professed  ;  for  Tritheists  would  allow 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  God,  and  they  are  by  no  means  Trinita 
rians.  But  what  we  would  chiefly  observe,  as  being  most 
pertinent  to  the  observation  of  Erasmus,  and  most  useful  for 
getting  an  idea  of  the  history,  is,  that  adorations  might  be  paid 
1  See  Bingham,  13.  2.  4.  vol.  i.  p.  5J2. 


IV.i.4.] 


THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 


501 


II.  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  yet  his  Divinity  not  acknowledged,  as 
a  doctrine.  From  the  earliest  times  of  Christianity,  high  strains 
of  devotion  were  used,  either  to  God,  without  distinction  of 
Persons ;  or  to  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  to  the 
only-begotten  Son,  or  to  the  Paraclete,  which  is  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  or  to  two  or  all  of  them  :  and  these  were  used  rightly ; 
in  right  circumstances  ;  and  the  connection  and  precedence  of 
the  several  Divine  Persons  was  artless  but  natural,  and  such  as 
the  subject,  or  the  course  of  the  expression,  happened  to  re 
quire — without  reserve,  without  speculation.  Gratitude,  ad 
miration,  devout  love,  kept  the  understanding  from  running 
into  dry  disquisitions.  When  Christians  were  accused  of  the 
errors  of  Polytheism,  they  denied  them,  and  shewed  that  their 
theory  was  to  worship  one  God  in  Unity.  This  they  said  so 
long  as  they  were  obliged  to  attend  to  theory  ;  but,  at  other 

236  times,  they  caught  the  glorious  hymns  of  Scripture,  and  uttered 
them  fervently — without  cold  hesitation,  or  metaphysical  dis 
tinction2. 

With  regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  may  not  be  improper 
farther  to  add,  that  what  we  have,  as  the  original  Nicene  Creed, 
contains  nothing  about  the  Holy  Spirit,  except  these  words,  /ecu 
€i<s  TO  ayiov  Tn'eu/xa3;  from  which  his  divinity  could  only  be 
collected,  at  most.  I  know  it  is  urged  that  the  remaining  part 
of  what  we  now  use  as  the  Nicene  Creed  was  only  omitted,  as 
unnecessary,  because  the  dispute  with  the  Arians  was  only  about 
the  Son:  but  does  not  this  shew,  that  a  doctrine  was  not  usually 
declared  and  established  till  controversy  made  such  declaration 
needful  ? 

Lactantius,  placed  in  the  year  306,  seems  to  speak  with 
some  degree  of  indifference4,  as  if  it  were  enough  for  Christians 
to  worship  two  persons  of  the  Trinity  instead  of  three,  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  Indeed,  the  objection  which  had  been 
made  did  not  force  him  to  introduce  the  duty  of  worshipping 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  yet  it  would  now  seem  very  unnatural 
and  unorthodox  to  say  that  we  ought  to  worship  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  then  add  nothing  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Jerom  and  others  reckon  Lactantius  not  quite  right  in  his  opi- 


2  It  does  not    follow,  supposing  the 
Holy  Ghost  not  to  have  been  called  God 
at  first,   that  he   might  not  have  been 
called  so  with  propriety;  if  occasion  had 
so  required. 

3  For  what  is  here  said  concerning  the 


Nicene  Creed,  see  Usher  de  Symbolis, 
pp.  13,  and  17-  Rutherforth's  Charge, 
pp.  }U,  H.r>,  and  70.  Lardner,  vol.  iv. 
p.  11)1.  Lord  King  on  the  Creed,  p.  :;i!i. 

1    IllM.    I.  !'!». 


50*2 


ARTICLES     OF     RELIGION. 


[IV.  i.  4. 


nions  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost;   and  speak  of  him  as  taking  II. 
what  is  said  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  if  it  were  said  of  the  Father 
or  of  the  Son ;  and  denying  (in  effect  at  least)  the  Personality  of  237 
the  Holy  Ghost.     That  he  could  do  this  in  306,  without  being 
noticed  as  an  heretic,  confirms  our  notion,  that  our  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  was  not  then  fully  settled.      (See  Lardner's  Works, 
vol.  iv.  p.  60.) 

What  we  are  told  with  regard  to  the  form  of  Doxology, 
seems  to  make  for  our  supposition — that,  till  the  fourth  century, 
Christians  were  permitted  either  to  use  our  present  form,  or, 
"  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  in,  with,  by  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.11  And  that  no  Christian  was  molested  for  using  that 
form  which  he  liked  best,  till  the  times  of  the  Arian  Con 
troversy  l. 

The  Manicheans  had  a  Trinity2;  and  they  are  considered  as 
flourishing  before  the  end  of  the  third  century ;  but  no  one  will 
say  that  their  Trinity  is  ours.  We  have  allowed  that  many 
triads  have  been  adopted  at  one  time  or  other  ;  and  that,  in  some 
sense,  Christians  always  held  a  Trinity. 

Some  learned  men  have  considered  Lucian's  Philopatris  as 
a  proof  that  the  Trinity  was  professed  amongst  Christians  so 
early  as  the  time  of  Lucian,  who  is  placed  as  flourishing  in  the 
year  176;  but  I  cannot  think  this  dialogue  really  written  by 
Lucian.  It  is  unlike  his  manner.  It  was  written  by  some  one 
who  knew  more  of  Christians  than  he  appears,  from  his  other 
works,  to  have  known. 

If  it  be  said,  what  does  it  signify  by  whom  it  was  written,  if 
it  was  written  about  Lucian's  time?  I  answer,  imitations  come 
after  originals ;  spurious  after  genuine ;  often  so  long  after, 
that  the  genuine  afford  no  proof  of  the  time  of  the  spurious. 
Lardner  conceives,  from  the  matter  of  this  dialogue,  that  238 
it  is  more  suitable  to  the  fourth  century  than  to  the  age  of 
Lucian  ;  which  is  some  confirmation  of  what  we  are  endeavour 
ing  to  prove3. 

On  the  whole,  though  it  seems  clear  that  the  materials  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  were  in  some  readiness  before  the 
fourth  century,  it  may  be  matter  of  doubt  whether  they  were 
put  together  so  soon,  and  the  doctrine  perfectly  constructed. 


1  Bingham,  14.  2.  1.    Gibbon,  vol.  11. 
p.  293,  note.      BroughtorTs  Diet.   Tri 
nity. 

2  Aug.  contra  Faustum,  lib.  20.     See 


Lardner's  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  4«I>9.    And 
Appendix  to  Book  I.  sect.  4. 

3  Lardner's   Testimonies,   under    I,u~ 
rian,  end.  Works,  vol.  vin.  p.  81. 


IV.  i.  5,  6.] 


THE     HOLY     TRINITY. 


503 


II.  And  explaining  such   doubt,  seems   to  be  the  best   method  of 
giving  the  history  of  the  doctrine. 

5.  This  may  be  a  proper  place  to  remark  the  difference 
between  the  ancient  Unitarians  and  the  modern.    The  account 
I  should  be  inclined  to  give,  from  expressions   found  in  most4 
writers,  is,  that  the  ancient  Unitarians,  at   the  same  time  that 
they  were  alarmed  at  infringing  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Unity,  or  on  the  Unity  of  God  the  Father,   had  no   idea  of 
denying  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and   so  made  the  Father  and 
Son  the  same  Person.    The  modern  Unitarians,  equally  shocked 
at  the  idea  of  denying  the  Divine  Unity,  secure  it  by   making 
the  Father  and  the  Son  infinitely  different.     But  Lardner  will 
have  it5,  that  Praxeas  only  supposed  the  Divine  Nature  (that  is, 
the  Divine  Wisdom,  which  he  thought  was  the  meaning  of  the 
Word)  in  the  Man,  Jesus ;    who,  having  been  born  of  a  virgin, 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  called  the  Son  of  God.     To  avoid  con 
troversy,  I  will  only  lay  down,  that  ancient  Unitarians  made  the 
Son  of  God,  after  Jesus  had  become  so  by  his  being  conceived 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  the  union  of  the  Word   with  the 

239  human  nature,  much  nearer  to  equality  with  God  the  Father, 
than  the  modern  Unitarians  do,  who  conceive  Jesus  Christ  to 
be  nothing  more  than  a  mere  man.  Nay,  I  think  we  might  go 
so  far  as  to  say,  that  the  ancient  Unitarians  exerted  themselves 
to  secure  the  Unity  of  God,  by  making  the  Father  and  the  Son 
as  nearly  the  same  as  possible;  and  that  the  modern  Unitarians 
try  to  secure  the  same  fundamental  doctrine,  by  making  the 
Father  and  the  Son  as  different  as  possible. 

6.  I  must  now  give  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  doctrine 
of  this  first  Article,  down  to  the  present  time  ;  but  I  will  be 
very  brief6. 

Arianism  got  to  be  supported  by  some  of  the  Roman 
emperors,  and  occasioned  wars,  till  the  end  of  the  7th  century7. 
It  then  became  wholly  extinct.  The  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 


4  See  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  He  "was 
conceived,"  &c.  .Note  on  Patripas*i<ins. 

5  Lard.  Her.  Praxeas,  sect.  7»  and  8. 

6  On  review,  it  seems  as  if  some  idea 
of  the  Roman   Laws  (Codex,    lib.   1.) 
should  be  given  here ;  and  the  beginning 
of  our  Reformatio  Legum  read. 

7  Gibbon,  vol.  in.  p.  552,   quarto — 
after   the   conversion  of  the  Lombards. 
Voltaire,  vol.  xiv.  quarto,  p.  H3,  bottom, 
says,  (neglecting  seemingly  the  distinc 


tion  between  Arians  and  Socinians),  "  Le 
parti  d'Arius,  apres  trois  cens  ans  de 
triomphe,  et  douze  sie'cles  d'oubli,  renait 
entin  de  sa  cendre."  But  All'u:,  in  his 
Preface  to  Jews  and  Unitarians,  p.  i\. 
says,  "  Within  150  years,  or  thereabouts, 
after  their  first  rise,  there  hardly  re 
mained  any  professors  of  it"  (of  the 
Arian  sect).  Perhaps  Allix  might  reckon 
the  later  Arians  too  barbarous  to  be 
spoken  of. 


504 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  i.  6. 


Trinity  prevailed  from  that  time  till  the  reformation.  Upon  II. 
great  religious  revolutions,  custom,  prejudice,  authority,  &c. 
losing  their  hold,  numbers  of  men  set  up  for  teachers,  and 
leaders  of  new  sects.  At  our  Reformation,  Socinus,  uncle  and 
nephew,  attacked  every  thing  which  seemed  difficult  to  human 
reason;  and  endeavoured  to  remove  every  mystery.  It  has  been 
said1  that  they  were  induced  to  do  so  by  abhorrence  of  the 
slavery  to  the  authority  of  the  Romish  Church,  under  which  240 
reason  had  long  groaned.  At  first,  however,  the  Socinians  called 
Christ  God,  and  offered  adorations  to  him2;  but  this  was  soon 
altered,  even  in  the  life-time  of  Faustus  Socinus ;  and  since 
that  time,  Christ  has  been,  with  them,  a  mere  man,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  no  Person.  They  have  been  so  pressed  with  Scrip 
ture,  that  they  have  been  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  that 
desperate  expedient,  of  lessening  its  authority,  so  rashly  made 
use  of  by  ancient  heretics.  At  the  latter  end  of  the  l?th  cen 
tury,  St.  John's  Gospel  (or  rather  the  opening  of  it)  had  been 
attributed3  to  Cerinthus,  (the  very  man,  against  whom  many 
persons  have  judged  it  to  have  been  written  ;)  and,  at  present, 
we  find  the  inspiration  of  Christ  and  St.  Paul4  estimated  much 
lower  than,  as  far  as  I  know,  they  ever  before  have  been,  by 
any  writer  zealous  for  the  honour  of  Christianity5. 

Pretty  early  in  the  18th  century  (the  present)  there  was  a 
very  extensive  Trinitarian  controversy6.  Mr.  Whiston,  Lu- 
casian  Professor  of  Mathematics  in  Cambridge,  maintained  what 
was  called  Arianism — that  the  Logos  was  to  Christ  in  the  place 
of  a  rational  soul :  but  this  seems  to  have  been  the  opinion  of 
Apollinarius7 .  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  was  thought  not  quite 
orthodox,  with  regard  to  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  which  he  explained  so  as  to 
make  a  greater  subordination  than  some  strict  Trinitarians  241 
approved.  He  was  threatened  by  a  Convocation8  in  1714,  and 
his  preferment  was  "impeded;  but,  I  suppose,  any  one  might 


1  Allix,  Pref.  p.  xi. 

2  See  Racovian  Cathechism. 

3  Allix's  Preface. 

4  Dr.   Priestley's   Letters,   mentioned 
again  sect.  16. 

:>  It  might  have  been  mentioned,  that, 
about  the  time  of  the  Reformation  Servc- 
tus  and  Valentinns  Geniilis  suffered 
death  for  their  notions  about  the  Trinity. 
This  is  mentioned  under  the  2d  Article. 

"  Maclaine,  in  his  Notes  on  Mosheim, 


gives  some  account  of  this  controversy, 
vol.  vi.  8vo,  p.  40. 

7  See  afterwards,  Art.  ii.  sect.  14. 

8  An  Apology  for  Dr.  Clarke  gives  the 
records. 

9  It  is  said   that  Clarke's  book  about 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  pre 
vented  Queen  Anne's  making  him  arch 
bishop  of  Canterbury;  and  that  Bishop 
(Jibson  told  the  Queen,  "  He  is  the  most 
learned  and  hones  test  man  in  the  nation; 


IV.  i.  7.] 


THE     HOLY    TRINITY. 


505 


II.  now  preach  his  doctrine  without  being  thought  irregular.  He 
calls  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  Divine  Persons ,-  and  thinks 
that  addressing  prayers  to  them  is  warranted  by  Scripture10. 
He  seems  to  differ  very  little  from  Bishop  Pearson,  if  at  all. 
Voltaire,  with  his  usual  inaccuracy,  calls  him,  "  le  plus  ferme 
patron  de  la  doctrine  Arienne11." 

In  the  summary  of  the  doctrines  of  Swedenborg,  we  find 
this  account  of  the  Trinity12,  "There  is  a  Divine  Trinity  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  or,  in  other  words,  of  the  all- 
begetting  Divinity,  the  Divine-humanity,  and  the  Divine-pro 
ceeding,  or  operation ;  and  that  this  Trinity  consisteth  not 
therefore  of  three  distinct  Persons,  but  is  united,  as  soul,  body, 
and  operation  in  man,  in  the  One  Person  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  therefore  is  the  God  of  Heaven,  and  alone  to  be 
worshipped,  being  Creator  from  Eternity,  Redeemer  in  Time, 
24-2  and  Regenerator  to  Eternity13."  I  mention  this  notion  chiefly 
on  account  of  its  making  the  Father  no  object  of  our  worship, 
and  dropping  also  all  worship  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  have  no  authentic  account  of  the  Moravian  notion  con 
cerning  the  Trinity ;  but,  from  what  I  have  seen  of  their 
worship,  and  heard,  when  attending  their  meetings,  of  their 
sermons  and  hymns,  I  should  conclude,  that  they  take  but  little 
notice  of  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  English  law,  made 
even  since  the  Revolution,  (see  Blackstone,  Index,  Trinity,) 
punishes  as  heresy  any  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; 
that  is,  either  denying  any  Person  of  the  Trinity  to  be  God, 
or  denying  the  Divine  Unity.  But  this  law  is  not  now  en 
forced,  though  parliament  has  refused  to  repeal  it. 

7-  Having  finished  the  history  of  this  first  Article,  we 
come  to  the  explanation  of  the  particular  expressions  contained 
in  it ;  but  this  need  not  be  long.  In  a  system  of  religious 
truths,  it  seems  necessary  to  begin  from  the  nature  of  God  ;  so 
that  we  might  have  expected  such  an  Article  as  the  first,  had 


he  only  wants  one  thing."     "  What  is 
that  ?  "    "  To  be  a  Christian." 

10  He  once  declared,  "  in  a  paper  laid 
before  the  bishops,  that  the  Son  of  God 
was  etc  mull  if  l>c(/otten  by  the  eternal 
incomprehensible  power  and  will  of  the 
Father."  See  Waterland's  Arian  Subscr. 

i>.  :w. 

"  Voltaire's  Works,  quarto,  vol.  xiv. 
p.  63.  This  makes  Voltaire's  confound 
ing  Arian  and  Socinian  appear  ill.  Dr.  S. 


Clarke  was  very  far  indeed  from  being  a 
Socinian.  Yet  Arian,  it  is  said  after 
wards,  was  a  generic  term.  Art.  ii. 
sect.  f>. 

12  Page  49. 

13  Compare  this  expression  with  Theo- 
doret's    account   of   Sabellianism.    Her. 
Fab.  2.  9.     It  is  translated  under  Lard- 
ner's  Dionysius  of  Alexandria.    Works, 
vol.  in.  p.  78. 


506 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  1.  8. 


there  been  no  particular  occasion  for  it.  It  is  however  proba-  II. 
ble  that  the  compilers  would  have  in  their  minds  the  chief  of 
those  who  had  denied  any  of  the  Attributes  of  God,  as  learnt 
either  from  natural  religion  or  revealed.  One  God  may  be  op 
posed  to  two  original  principles;  "living,"  to  idols;  "true," 
to  false  Gods.  The  Unity  is  opposed  to  all  kinds  of  gods  of 
Polytheists ;  "  everlasting,"  to  made  with  hands,  deified,  and 
perishable ;  "  without  body"  may  also  be  opposed  to  pagan 
deities,  or  to  Anthropomorphites ;  "  parts,"  to  those  who 
thought  Christ  was  a  part1  of  God  ;  without  "  passions"  is  in 
Latin  impassibilis,  which  may  mean  incapable  of  suffering,  or  243 
may  be  opposed  to  the  Patripassians,  or  those  so  called.  Af 
firming  God  to  be  the  Creator,  is  opposing  those  who  held 
matter  eternal,  and  those  who  held  that  the  world  was  created 
by  inferior  spirits,  or  aeons,  not  commissioned  by  the  supreme 
benevolent  Being :  affirming  God  to  be  the  Preserver,  is  op 
posing  Epicureans,  and  all  who  should  deny  a  Providence. 
The  profession  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  is  opposed  to  all  who 
held  three  Gods,  or  one  God  with  three  names;  or  who  held 
the  Son  to  be  a  mere  man,  or  inferior  to  the  Father  as  to  his 
Divinity.  The  word  "  Person"  is  not  to  be  understood  in  its 
usual  sense,  but  as  a  term  borrowed  from  common  language, 
and  used  in  a  sense  not  very  remote  from  its  usual  sense,  to  ex 
press  a  distinction,  which  must  be  expressed  in  some  way,  and 
of  which  we  have  no  clear  comprehension.  For  the  hands, 
wrath  of  God,  &c.,  see  Book  I.  chap.  xix.  sect.  5,  about  Dis 
pleasure. 

8.  After  the  explanation  comes  the  proof;  but  here  we  will 
confine  ourselves  to  that  subject  which  is  expressed  in  the  title 
of  the  Article 2.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  all  that  will  at 
present  stand  in  need  of  proof.  A  regular  proof  of  this  doctrine 
would  consist  of  Jive  parts — all  taken  from  Scripture.  1.  A 
proof  of  the  Unity  of  God.  2.  Of  the  Divinity  of  the  Father. 
3.  Of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son.  4.  Of  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  the  proof,  that  these  might  be  put  together,  would 
make  a  fifth  part.  1.  The  Unity  of  God  is  so  clear  from 
Scripture,  that  proof  of  that  is  surely  needless.  2.  The  Divinity 
of  the  Father,  says  Bishop  Burnet 3,  is  denied  by  none.  Or,  if 


1  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  p.  270,  first 
edit,  or  p.  135,  t'ol.  For  impartibilis,  see 
Forbes,  vol.  i.  1.  34.  3,  &c. 

2  Bishop  Burnet  is  mentioned,  at  the 


opening  of  this  Article,  as  proving  truths 
of  natural  religion  under  it. 
3  Burnet  on  Articles,  p.  50,  Hvo. 


IV.  1.  8.]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  507 

II.  we  conceive  any  Christian  mystics  to  deny  it,  we  need  only 

244  adduce  the  prayers  of  Christ  to  his  heavenly  Father,  as  a  proof 
of  his  Divinity.     3.    The  Divinity  of  the  Son  is  to  be  proved 
under  the  second  Article ;    4.  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  under 
the  fifth  ;    therefore,   5.   nothing  remains  but  to  see  the  Scrip 
tural  manner  of  putting  these  together :  and  I  know  not  that 
we  can  see  that  better  than  by  reading  Dr.  Samuel  darkens 
collection4  of  texts,  in  which  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
are  mentioned  jointly.     It  would  appear,  from  such  reading, 
that  a  Christian  may  be  permitted  to  give  precedence  sometimes 
to  the  Son,  sometimes  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  occasion  may  re 
quire.      If  this  form  of  proof  seems  at  first  sight  imperfect,  I 
think  one  might  venture  to  engage,  that  it  will  not  seem  so,  if, 
after  going  through  the  second  and  fifth  Articles,  we  return  to 
the  point  where  we  now  are. 

I  will,  therefore,  in  order  to  a  regular  proof,  only  make  one 
more  observation.  I  believe  many  have  a  notion  that  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Trinity  is  formed  in  an  arbitrary  and  presumptuous 
manner;  by  going  beyond  what  is  revealed,  and  taking  human 
imaginations  for  divine  instructions  or  commands.  My  notion 
differs  from  this.  I  believe,  that  the  Scripture  is  the  source  of 
the  doctrine  in  every  part.  The  scriptural  expressions  are  ex 
amined,  they  are  considered  as  so  many  facts  or  phenomena, 
which  must  be  consistent,  in  some  way  or  other,  though  we 
know  not  how.  What  can  be  done  ?  what  does  the  best  and 
calmest  reason  dictate  to  be  done  in  such  a  case,  but  that  we 
should  endeavour  to  class  these  facts  or  phenomena,  and  then 
ask,  whether  there  is  not  some  supposition  on  which  they  might 
all  be  accounted  for  ?  which  would  make  them  all  unite,  so  far 

245  as  to  make  different  parts  of  one  plan  ?   Is  not  this  the  same 
process  as  solving  any  phenomenon  of  nature,  by  observation 
and  experiment  ?    What  other  method  did  Sir  Isaac  Newton 
pursue  when  he  solved   the  phenomena  of  the  rainbow  ?    He 
observed  the  colours;  their  order,  their  breadth,  the  magnitude, 
the  centres  of  the  bows,  and  so  forth;  he  considered  the  manner 
in  which  rays  of  light  are  affected  by  passing  through  globes  of 
water ;    he  formed  a  supposition,  which   should  tie  all  these 
phenomena  together,  and  reduce  them  to  one  plan:   he   tried 
whether  it  would  suit,  he  formed  or  heard  objections,  or,  in 
other    words,    proved    his    supposition   by    controversy.     The 
thing  which  at  last  proved  that  he  was  right,  was,  that  all  ap- 

4  The  number  is  forty-eight,  as-  I  reckoned  them  up. 


508  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  i.  9,  10. 

pearances  came  into  his  plan;  and  none  was  left  without  a  place,  II. 
and  as  it  were  a  provision.  The  case  is  the  same  with  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Trinity.  A  number  of  texts  are  examined,  their 
consistency  is  not  seen ;  some  supposition  is  to  be  formed, 
which  shall  bring  them  all  into  one  plan  ;  and  that  supposition 
is  to  be  received  as  truth  which  answers  the  end1.  This  is  the 
force  of  saying,  what  I  say  with  great  assurance,  that,  if  all 
expressions  of  Scripture,  relating  to  the  divine  attributes,  are 
classed  according  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  they 
are  interpreted  in  the  best,  most  easy,  most  natural  manner  ; 
according  to  the  soundest  principles  of  grammar  and  criticism  ; 
so  as  they  would  be  interpreted  separately,  if  no  particular  end 
was  in  view — taking  each  text  with  its  context. 

9.  Having   now  gone  through  the   history,   explanation,  24-6 
and  proof,  it  remains,  that  we  make  the  application. 

The  application  will  consist  of  the  following  particulars: 
First,  the  sense  in  which  a  rational  Christian  may  now  be  sup 
posed  to  give  his  assent,  in  the  present  state  of  knowledge. 
2.  The  concessions  which  might  possibly  be  made,  and  the 
expedients  which  might  be  used,  on  our  part,  if  those  who  dif 
fer  from  us  were  desirous  to  make  peace,  and  agree  upon  some 
terms  of  union.  3.  The  concessions  and  accommodations  which 
might  be  required  of  dissenters,  in  such  a  case.  4.  And,  lastly, 
the  improvements  which  might  possibly  arise  from  a  right  in 
vestigation  of  our  subject. 

10.  First  then,  we  are  to  consider  in  what  sense  a  rational 
Christian  may  now  give  his  assent  to  the  first  Article  of  our 
Church.      But  here  it  seems  necessary  previously  to  reflect  on 
the  sense  in  which  thinking  and  rational  men  use  some  words  in 
speaking  of  the  Supreme  Being :  particularly  the  words  infi 
nite  and  divine. 

Sometimes  the  word  infinite  has  an  unphilosophical  idea 
affixed  to  it,  as  if  it  expressed  something  positive :  but  its  pro 
per  sense  is  2  negative,  as  the  etymology  itself  declares ;  it 
means,  without  limit.  When  the  mind  enlarges  number,  for 
instance,  and  sees  that  it  can  still  enlarge,  and  that  there  is  no 
appearance  of  any  limit  at  which  it  must  stop,  it  infers  infinity 


1  A  supposition  which  makes  all  texts 
consistent,  may,  no  doubt,  be  possibly 
*  false  supposition :  it  is  not  likely  to  be 
so;  but  it  may  be  so.  Yet  such  an  one 
is  to  be  received  for  truth  for  the  present, 


till  some  other  hypothesis  appears  to  be 
preferable  to  it.     Sir  Isaac  Newton's  4th 
rule  of  philosophizing  seems  not  unlike 
this. 
-  Locke,  Book  II.  chap.  xvii.  sect.  8, 


and  to  be  acquiesced  in,  in  some  degree,       says,  "  negation  of  an  end." 


IV.  i.  10.]  THK     HOLY     TRIN'ITY.  509 

II.  of  number.  The  same  may  be  said  of  power,  duration,  or  even 
of  intimacy  of  connection.  So  that  if  a  man  ascribes  infinity 
to  any  thing,  he  does  no  more  than  express  a  simple  fact — an 
247  operation  of  his  mind  :  he  says,  that  his  mind  has  attempted  to 
assign  a  limit  to  that  thing,  but  has  returned  disappointed  from 
the  attempt. 

If  we  once  quit  this  simple  conception  we  run  into  absurd 
ity  ;  and,  though  we  may  despise  such  kind  of  absurdity  in 
more  gross  instances,  as  when  a  person  talks  of  an  infinitely 
long  stick  with  a  candle  at  the  end  of  it,  or  of  the  bottomless  pit 
being  paved3  with  scholars1  skulls;  yet  it  is  well  if  we  keep 
perfectly  clear  of  all  degrees  of  it  ourselves  in  cases  less  striking. 
I  myself  have  heard  a  preacher,  who  was  by  no  means  deficient 
in  eloquence,  speak  of  an  angel  (or  some  other  being)  "  flying 
from  one  end  of  infinite  space  to  the  other. " 

In  order  to  obviate  mistakes,  it  may  not  be  improper  to 
hint,  that  when,  in  mathematics,  a  quantity  is  called  infinitely 
great,  or  infinitely  small,  the  expression  is  to  be  considered  as 
technical,  and  is  to  be  explained  by  shewing,  mathematically, 
some  particular  properties  in  the  increase  or  decrease  of  such 
quantities ;  such  as  make  that  increase  or  decrease  unlimited, 
in  some  particular  way.  And,  that  when  it  is  said  that  the 
Jixed  stars  are  at  an  infinite  distance,  it  is  only  meant  that  they 
are  at  an  immense  or  unmeasurable  distance ;  that  is,  that  men 
happen  to  have  no  measure  now  known  by  which  that  distance 
can  be  ascertained — no  line  so  long,  that  by  its  being  taken  any 
number  of  times  the  distance  of  the  fixed  stars  can  be  made 
definite :  or,  the  distance  of  the  fixed  stars  is  so  great,  that  no 
known  distance  bears  any  assignable  proportion  to  it. 

When  we  say  that  a  Being  is  divine,  what  is  it  that  passes 
in  our  mind  ?  Is  it  not  this  ?  We  take  all  the  faculties  and  ex- 
248  cellences  of  which  we  have  any  idea,  unite  them  together,  con 
sider  them  as  belonging  to  one  Being ;  we  conceive  them  to  In 
improved,  refined,  purified,  enlarged,  to  the  greatest  degree 
possible — beyond  any  limit,  which  we  can  assign  or  imagine. 
The  Being  possessing  these  we  account  divine.  It  is  possible 
he  may  have  other  faculties  and  excellences,  of  which  \\e  have- 
no  conception;  but  these  cannot  make  part  of  mtr  idea  of  a 
Divinity.  And,  as  we  acquire  an  idea  of  a  Divine  Being  by 
collecting  and  uniting  his  attributes,  so,  if  we  find  instance! 

3  Expressions  sometimes  mentioned   amongst   young  scholars  at   Cambridge,  as 
used  by  a  preacher  in  a  conventicle. 


510  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  i.  10. 

of  such  attributes  exerted,  we  ascribe  Divinity  to  the  Being  in  II. 
whom  they  are  found.      If  there  is  imperfection  in  doing  so,  it 
lies  in  the  human  understanding  (as  far  as  we  yet  know  it),  not 
in  our  use  of  the  powers  which  God  has  given  us l. 

These  things  premised,  we  may  use  fewer  words  in  our  de 
claration  equivalent  to  our  first  Article ;  and  make  that  decla 
ration  more  simple.  Let  it  be  then  something  of  this  kind. 

« As  to  the  Existence  and  Unity  of  God,  when  my  business 
is  only  to  interpret  his  word,  I  have  no  difficulty.  Nor  do  I 
hesitate  about  his  being  free  from  the  imperfections  and  impuri 
ties  of  body,  (or  of  whatever  is  divisible,)  and  the  impotencies 
of  human  passions.  And  how  inadequately  soever  I  may  be 
able  to  comprehend  his  infinite  duration,  power,  wisdom,  and 
goodness,  yet  I  cannot  doubt  that  they  are  declared  and  pub 
lished  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  that  He  is  there  represented 
as  the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  all  things.  Indeed,  for  such 
opinions  as  these,  I  shall  never  have  need  to  separate  myself 
from  any  religious  society  which  is  at  all  rational ;  and  there 
fore,  however  important  they  may  be  as  subjects  of  meditation, 
it  is  needless  for  me  to  enter  minutely  into  them,  when  I  am 
only  comparing  different  interpretations  of  Scripture ;  and  that  249 
merely  as  they  distinguish  one  church  from  another. 

'  But,  when  it  is  proposed  to  me  to  affirm,  that  "  In  the 
Unity  of  this  Godhead  there  be  three  Persons,  of  one  substance, 
power,  and  eternity ;  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost11 — I  have  difficulty  enough  !  My  understanding  is  in 
volved  in  perplexity,  my  conceptions  bewildered  in  the  thickest 
darkness  :  I  pause,  I  hesitate,  I  ask  what  necessity  there  is  for 
making  such  a  declaration  ?  And  my  difficulty  is  increased, 
when  I  find  that  making  this  declaration  separates  me  from 
Christians,  whom  I  must  acknowledge  to  be  rational  and  well- 
informed — from  those  who  have  studied  some  parts  of  Scripture 
with  singular  success. 

'  When  I  have  continued  in  this  state  for  some  time,  I  re 
collect  that  every  man  in  society,  when  knowledge  is  progressive, 
may  have  occasion  to  go  upon  propositions 2,  which  only  beings 
superior  to  himself  fully  comprehend,  for  the  present.  And  I 
see,  that  if  either  such  a  declaration  must  be  made,  or  some 
parts  of  Scripture  must  be  neglected,  or  wrested  from  their  na 
tural  sense,  then  obscurity  ought  not  to  deter  me  from  making 

1  Book  I.  chap.  iii.  sect.  1. 

-  As  mariners  calculate  by  rules  which  they  do  not  understand. 


IV.  i.  10.] 


THE     HOLY     TRINITY. 


511 


II.  it;  and  that  I  must  content  myself  with  lamenting  a  separation, 
to  which  I  must  submit,  as  without  it  the  ends  of  religious 
society  cannot  be  obtained.  Things  of  a  great  and  solemn  na 
ture  cannot  be  recorded  in  the  Scripture  for  no  end  or  purpose. 
All  therefore  seems  now  to  depend  upon  what  the  Scriptures 
really  teach. 

'  I  search  then  the  Scriptures.  Of  the  Father  I  find  many 
things  said  which  belong  to  none  but  God.  To  the  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit  I  find  such  titles  given  as  seem  to  me  due  only  to 
Divinity ;  and  moreover  such  intimacy  of  connection  with  the 

250  Father  is  ascribed  to  them,  as  I  can  put  no  limit  to ;    and  the 
same  is  true  of  the  power  shewn  in   their  various  acts,  and  of 
the  duration  of  their  existence.      I  can  conceive  no  titles  above 
their  titles ;   no  intimacy  of  connection  beyond  theirs  with  the 
Father  ;   no  power  above  their  power ;  no  duration  before  or 
after  their  duration. 

'  If  I  had  my  choice,  I  would  thus  express  myself  nega 
tively  :  I  would  say,  the  connection  between  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  is  such  as  I  can  set  no  bounds  to.  I  cannot 
make  any  separation  between  them ;  neither  can  I  limit  their 
power  or  duration ;  but,  if  I  am  called  upon  by  authority  to 
use  a  positive  expression,  I  use  one,  but  necessarily  in  the  same 
sense:  and  thus  I  speak  of  their  being  "of  one  substance, 
power,  and  eternity/'  Such  indeed  they  are  to  me ;  to  me  they 
are  divine ;  how  they  are  in  themselves,  it  is  impossible  for  me 
to  comprehend 3. 

'  I  am  moreover  very  forcibly  struck  with  finding  a  kind  of 
settled  custom  in  Scripture  of  mentioning  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  together,  on  the  most  solemn  occasions — of  which 
baptism  is  one — not  more  persons,  not  fewer.  To  what  can 
this  be  ascribed  ? 

'  Still  there  is  one  thing  never  to  be  forgotten  for  a  mo 
ment  ;  that  is,  the  Unity  of  God.  Scripture  and  reason  jointly 
proclaim,  there  is  but  ONE  GOD.  However  the  proofs  of 
the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  may  seem  to  interfere 
with  this,  nothing  is  to  be  allowed  them  but  what  is  con- 

251  sistent  with  it.     The  divine  nature,  or  substance,  can  there- 


3  In  Serm.  23f>  (or  Ifll)  de  Tempore, 
sect.  2,  to  be  found  in  the  Works  of 
Augustin,  the  eternal  generation  of  Christ 
is  expressed  by,  "  non  aliquod  tempus 
ascribimus."  It  is  also  implied  that  we 
take  mysterious  doctrines  in  order  to 


avoid  absurdities; — "non  possunnis  alitcr 
confiteri  acternum  Palrem."  I  speak 
rather  of  the  general  form  or  idea,  unon 
possumus  aliter  conKteri,"  &c.,  than  of 
this  particular  argument. 


512  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  i.   10. 

fore  be  but  "one  substance" — the  divine  power  can  be  but  II. 
"  one  power" 

'  But,  does  not  this  confound  all  our  conceptions,  and  make 
us  use  words  without  meaning?  I  think  it  does;  I  profess  and 
proclaim  my  confusion  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner ;  I 
make  it  an  essential  part  of  my  declaration.  Did  I  pretend  to 
understand  what  I  say,  I  might  be  a  Tritheist,  or  an  infidel, 
but  I  could  not  both  worship  the  one  true  God1,  and  acknow 
ledge  Jesus  Christ  to  be  Lord  of  all 2.  In  using  words  with 
wrong  ideas,  I  might  express  error  and  falsehood ;  but,  in  using 
words  without  ideas,  I  profess  no  falsehood  ;  I  only  unite  the 
different  sayings  of  Scripture  in  the  best  manner  I  am  able, 
though  in  a  manner  confessedly  imperfect.  But  this  imperfec 
tion  I  adopt,  lest  I  should  run  into  a  greater  evil,  by  putting 
a  forced  and  wrong  construction  on  scriptural  sayings,  in  order 
to  reduce  them  to  the  level  of  my  human  capacity.1 

Thus  may  any  man  assent  to  the  first  Article,  supposing 
him  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  second  and  fifth.  It  is  not 
at  all  to  be  wished  that  assent  should  be  given  with  less  diffi 
dence.  Such  assent  would  be  more  open  to  cavil  and  objection 
than  ours ;  but  still  it  may  be  allowed  to  take  some  nDtice  of 
certain  illustrations  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  not  wholly 
unworthy  of  attention.  These  might  be  considered,  though 
they  ought  not  to  be  admitted  as  authentic :  they  might  serve 
to  lessen  the  uncouthness  of  the  doctrine,  though  they  could 
not  make  it  clear.  They  might  prevent  men  from  being  so  dis 
gusted  as  rashly,  suddenly,  to  throw  all  thoughts  of  it  aside. 
Thus,  Athanasius*  makes  Peter,  Paul,  and  Timothy  to  be  252 
three  persons  (vTroaTaaei?)  in  one,  because  of  their  unanimity, 
or  having  only  one  mind.  Two  parents  are  often  to  be  consi 
dered  as  one  by  the  child.  A  body  corporate  are  many  or  one, 
as  they  are  considered  in  different  lights.  "  Ourselves,  our 
souls  and  bodies.1'  Sometimes,  in  popular  language,  (and  the 
Scripture  language  is  popular),  the  body  is  spoken  of  as  the 
self;  sometimes  the  soul;  sometimes  the  compound  of  body 
and  soul:  yet  there  is  but  one  self.  Such  notions  may  have 
some  good  effect,  in  preventing  the  bad  effects  of  prejudice ; 
but  a  respectful  suspense  is  all  that  a  reasonable  man  will  afford 
them.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  uses  which  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  has  seemed  to  be  of; — as  that  of  multiplying  our 

1  John  xvii.  3.  I       3  First  Dialogue  de  Trinitate,  quoted 

-  Acts  x.  3f>.  !   in  the  Preface  to  Episcopius,  sect.  vi. 


IV.  i.   11,12.]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  513 

II.  relations,  preventing  the  excesses  of  devout  fear  and  love,  &c. ; 
but  of  the  presumed  uses  of  revealing  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri 
nity,  hereafter*. 

11.  We  now  come  to  consider  what  could  be  done  on  our 
part,  if  those  who  dissent  from  us  were  desirous  to  agree  upon 
some  terms  of  union.    Not  that  success  has  generally 5  attended 
moderation;   but  it  must  be  a  satisfaction  to  have  endeavoured 
to  prevent  the  excesses  of  zeal  without  knowledge. 

It  often  happens  in  disputes,  that  a  term  gets  odium  an 
nexed  to  it,  and  then  the  use  of  that  term  increases  that  odium. 
This  has  happened  in  the  case  of  names,  used  as  opprobrious, 
though  harmless  in  themselves — as  Whig,  Tory,  &c.  And  I 
suppose  it  has  happened  with  regard  to  the  term  Trinity :  a 
term  which  does  not  at  all  imply  our  doctrine,  but  is  only  used 
253  (as  before-mentioned),  like  triumvirate,  to  save  repetition  of 
particulars  (Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost) ;  and  at  the  same 
time  to  mark  their  connection — to  prevent  a  number  of  words. 
It  is  not  a  scriptural  term,  and  our  doctrine  might  be  expressed 
without  it.  Some  have  thought,  "  Praestaret  sacrae  Scripturae 
verbis  adhaerere  in  tanto  mysterio6  explicando."  But  it  is 
conceivable,  that  any  new  word,  with  which  no  odium  had 
been  associated,  though  answering  the  same  purpose,  might 
be  allowed  by  all  parties.  See  Voltaire,  quarto,  vol.  xxiv. 
p.  462. 

12.  It  might  tend  to  promote  moderation,  and,  in  the  end, 
agreement,  if  we  were  industriously  on  all  occasions  to  represent 
our  own  doctrine  as  wholly  unintelligible.      Something  of  this 
has  been  hinted   before7.      The  plan   would   be  useful;  as  it 
would  put  us  upon  the  footing  of  those  who  profess  unintelligi 
ble  doctrines,  and  give  us  all  the  liberties  described  in  the  tenth 
chapter  of  our  third  Book.      It  would  also  oblige  our  adversa 
ries,  who  were  disposed  to  continue  the  combat,  to  oppose  us  on 
ground  less  advantageous  to  themselves — on  the  ground  of  ex 
pediency  ;   at  the  same  time  that  it  would  dispose  others  not  to 
attack  us  at  all.      I  fear  we  in  general  pretend  too  much  that 
our  doctrine  is  intelligible;  or  we  use  language  which  seems  to 
imply  such  pretension.     Bishop   Pearson  and  Dr.  Waterland 

4  The  last  section  of  this  Article.    We  i   in  his  Bibliotheca   Rabbinica,  does  not 
might  also  refer  back  to  the  concluding  speak  as  if  the  author  of  either  Seder 
part  of  sect.  3.  Olam  had  been  at  any  time  a  Christina. 

5  See  Mosheim,  under  Calixtus,  and  j    Dr.  Maclaine  condemns  using  unscrip- 
Syncretism.     Index.  tural  terms.    On  Mosheim,  cent.  v.  ii. 

6  Seder  Olam.     By  the  way,  Buxtorf,  v.  x.                      7  In  section  10. 

VOL.  I.  33 


514  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  i.   13. 

would  have  written  with  greater  effect,  if  they  had  taken  occa-  II. 
sion,  from  time  to  time,  to  say,  that,  though  they  exposed  the 
misrepresentations  of  others,  they  did  not  pretend  to  have  any 
clear  ideas  of  their  own  doctrine.  Whilst  we  speak  as  if  we  254 
understood  our  doctrine,  the  difference  between  dissenters  and 
us  is  a  difference  of  opinion ;  but,  when  we  own  that  we  have 
no  ideas  to  the  doctrine,  though  we  think  it  our  duty  to  retain 
it,  the  difference  may  be  merely  a  difference  of  words ;  for 
which  the  injunction,  to  "speak  the  same  thing1,"  may  be  a 
complete  remedy.  The  words  of  our  Article  might  be  made 
to  express  the  difficulty  of  the  doctrine  more  strongly  than  they 
do  at  present;  but  the  meaning  would,  in  reality,  be  the  same 
with  the  present  meaning.  "  There  is  an  inconceivable  connec 
tion,"  it  might  be  said,  "  between  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  more  intimate  than  can  be  defined ;  and  each  of  these 
has  infinite  power  and  wisdom,  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  the 
infinite  power  and  wisdom  of  the  other  two,  and  with  the  Unity 
of  God.  And  each  has  existed  for  a  time  without  limit"  This 
language  does  not  pretend  to  convey  clear  ideas :  that  of  our 
Article  rather  does. 

13.  I  apprehend  that  our  divines  do  not  dwell  sufficiently 
on  that  fundamental  principle  of  both  natural  and  revealed 
religion,  the  Unity  of  God.  They  run  out  into  proofs  of  the 
Divinity  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  if  these  doctrines 
were  not  limited  by  each  other,  and  by  those  of  the  Divinity  of 
the  Father,  and  the  divine  Unity.  To  dwell  frequently  on  the 
divine  Unity,  to  recur  perpetually  to  it,  is  necessary,  in  order 
to  keep  our  trinitarian  doctrine  in  its  right  form ;  to  omit  the 
mention  of  it  at  any  time  is  really  misrepresentation.  The 
Divinity  of  the  Son  is  a  doctrine  of  a  part  of  Scripture,  more 
properly  than  of  the  whole;  and  therefore  it  must  be  always  so 
understood,  that  it  may  be  consistent  with  other  parts:  though, 
for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  is  considered  255 
separately  in  the  second  Article,  and  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
the  fifth.  Moreover,  dwelling  much  on  the  Unity  of  God 
would  be  useful  with  respect  to  our  adversaries.  Those  who 
were  most  candid,  and  most  inclined  to  concord,  would  find 
their  minds  softened,  and  their  prejudices  against  us  weakened; 
and  those  of  a  more  contentious  nature  would  lose  some  advan 
tages  which  they  at  present  possess.  They  call  themselves 
Unitarians — a  favourable  name !  since  all  polytheism  is  un- 

1  1  Cor.  i.  10. 


IV.  I.    14.]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  515 

II.  doubtedly  error  and  barbarism  ;  but  are  they  more  Unitarians 
than  we  are  ?  That  is  what  they  would  insinuate ;  but  their 
pretensions  to  the  title  would  appear  the  more  feeble,  the  more 
frequently  we  insisted  on  the  Unity  of  God.  Anti-trinitarians 
would  be  a  fair  honest  name  for  them  to  give  themselves.  The 
father  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzuni,  Cave  speaks  of  as  "  virum 
optimum,  at  Hypsistariorum  erroribus  misere  seductum  ;"  and 
then  he  adds  an  explanation  of  what  he  means  by  Hypsistarii: 
"  Secta  ea  erat  ex  Judaismo  et  Gentilismo  conflata,  qua?  tamen 
summum  ilium  et  i/\|/tcrroi/  $eoi/,  unde  secta?  nomen,  unice  cole- 
bat." 

I  suppose  the  main  objection  of  moderate,  private  men — of 
those  who  are  to  be  reckoned  neither  friends  nor  enemies  to  the 
doctrine  of  our  Church — is,  that  it  interferes  with  the  Divine 
Unity.  This  is  an  objection  continually  operating;  therefore 
no  occasion  should  be  neglected  of  convincing  them  that  no  set 
of  men  are  more  strenuous  than  ourselves  in  maintaining  that 
fundamental  doctrine. 

14.  In  bringing  our  Church  and  its  adversaries  to  an 
agreement,  one  principal  difficulty  would  arise  from  our  address 
ing  ourselves  to  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  in  prayer.  As  we 
hold  them  to  be  divine,  we  must  think  ourselves  obliged  to  pay 
256  them  divine  honours:  such  dissenters  as  account  them  not 
divine,  would  look  upon  it  as  a  profanation  to  address  them  in 
prayer.  I  do  not  see  how  this  difficulty  is  to  be  obviated,  ex 
cept  it  were  to  be  allowed  that  any  being  may  be  addressed  as 
what  he  is;  and  then  scriptural  expressions  were  to  be  used  in 
the  form  of  addresses.  In  this  case,  the  addresses  might  be 
offered  in  different  senses  by  different  persons ;  but  this  need 
occasion  no  disturbance  or  confusion  ;  as  was  shewn  from  the 
instance  of  "  deliver  us  from  evil,"  and  other  instances  in  the 
third  Book2.  And  why  may  not  any  being  be  addressed  as 
what  he  is  ?  Protestants  are  against  offering  up  prayers  to 
saints,  or  any  being  except  the  Supreme ;  but  then  is  it  not 
because,  in  the  prayers  usually  offered,  something  is  implied 
which  really  is  not  true? — as  that  the  persons  addressed  can 
hear  and  assist,  when  they  cannot  ?  We  are,  at  least,  in  no 
danger  of  such  error,  if  we  adhere  to  words  of  Scripture.  Our 
addresses  might  be  called  prayers  by  those  who  thought  the 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  Divine  Persons;  by  others  they  might  be 
called  petitions,  or  by  any  other  name.  Perhaps  those  who 

»  See  Book  III.  chap.  vi.  sect.  4,  5,  9. 

3.3 2 


516 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  i.  15. 


would  not  allow  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  a  Person1  of  any  kind,  II. 
might  decline  addressing  any  thing  to  him  ;  and  there  might 
be  some  who  conceived  the  Son  to  be  incapable  of  hearing 
them;  yet  he  engaged  to  be  with  the  Church  "alway,"  "even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world2."  The  Vine  must  needs  be  as  much 
alive  as  the  branches — the  Shepherd  as  the  flock — the  Head 
of  the  body  as  the  members.  Possibly,  the  more  candid  and  257 
complying  might  address  themselves  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their 
own  sense ;  that  is,  make  it  a  mode  of  addressing  themselves  to 
the  Deity ;  and  might  conceive  that  the  Son,  he  who  was  at 
the  right  hand3  of  the  Majesty  on  high,  and  who  was  highly4 
exalted,  so  that  at  his  name  every  knee  should  bow,  might  be 
addressed  without  profanation.  Socinus  himself  allowed  Christ 
to  be  divine  (as  he  is  called  in  the  Racovian 5  Catechism)  and 
disputed  with  Francis  David  in  favour  of  offering  up  devotions 
to  him ;  and,  though  this  was  changed,  yet  the  use  of  terms 
wholly  scriptural  might  have  some  effect.  Why  should  any 
Christian  object  to  such  an  address  as  the  following  ? 

'  O  thou,  who  in  the  beginning  wast  with  God,  and  wast 
God — Thou,  by  whom  all  things  were  created,  that  are  in 
heaven  and  earth — Thou,  in  whose  name  all  men  are  by  bap 
tism  admitted  into  the  new  and  last  dispensation  of  God,  and 
made  partakers  of  the  new  covenant : — at  thy  name  every  knee 
shall  bow  : — hear  us  ;  intercede  for  us  ;  mediate  between  our 
Judge  and  us;  be  thou  our  Advocate  with  the  Father;  thou, 
who  sittest  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high :  send  to 
us  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thou,  who  knew- 
est  no  sin,  and  hadst  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  help  us, 
who  are  concluded  under  sin.  O  Lamb  of  God,  that  takest 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,  let  us  not  lose  any  of  the  benefits  of 
thy  stupendous  sacrifice!1  This  form  of  address  might  con 
tent  us,  and  need  not,  one  would  think,  disgust  those  who 
dissent  from  us.  It  might  be  much  enlarged,  without  depart 
ing  from  Scripture. 

15.     It  could  not  be  expected  that  we  should  take  so  much  258 
pains  to  accommodate  and  recommend  ourselves   to  those  who 
dissent  from  us,  without  expecting  something  from  them  in 
return.    They  might  say,  that,  whilst  we  were  bringing  our 


1  Dr.  Priestley,  in  illustrating  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  uses  language  as  if  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  a  person.  See  Familiar  Illus 
trations,  p.  30. 


2  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 

3  Heb.  i.  3.  4  Phil.  ii.  9. 

5  Sect.  6.    See  Mosheim's  Hist.  cent. 
IK.  sect.  3.  2.  4.  22,  &c. 


IV.  i.  15.]  THK     HOLY     TRINITY.  517 

II.  doctrines,  &c.  nearer  theirs,  we  were  improving  them ;  but  this 
is  not  to  be  supposed :  according  to  our  notions  we  should  be 
making  them  worse.  If  in  any  instance  we  conceived  ourselves 
to  be  improving,  that  ought  not  to  be  reckoned  amongst  our 
compliances.  It  might  also  be  urged,  that,  if  our  side  complied 
sufficiently,  theirs  need  not  comply  at  all ;  but  one  side  must 
feel  reluctant  and  mortified,  if  the  other  does  nothing ;  and  ex 
perience  tells  us,  that,  in  all  disputes,  if  we  would  effect  a 
reconciliation,  we  must  provide  more  than  what  is  barely  suffi 
cient  :  we  must  take  for  granted,  that  some  part  of  what  we 
provide  will  be  wasted  and  lost. 

I  apprehend  that  the  Church  of  England  and  the  gene 
rality  of  those  who  dissent  from  it,  might  unite  and  worship 
together,  if  they  were  properly  disposed  and  directed.  It 
would  be  a  different  thing  to  say,  it  is  probable,  in  the  present 
state  of  things,  that  they  will;  but  it  seems  owing  to  faults  and 
imperfections  on  one  side  or  the  other  that  they  do  not.  I  col 
lect  this  from  several  things,  which  have  been  already  con 
sidered  ; — as,  that  mutual  concessions  even  in  speculative 
doctrines,  though  we  have  not  power  to  alter  what  the  Scrip 
tures  declare,  are  6  allowable  for  the  sake  of  unity,  and  practi 
cable  ;  that  for  social  worship  it  is  not  perfect  unity  of  private 
opinion,  but  only  unity  of  doctrine  or  teaching7,  which  is  required; 
259  that  the  same  forms  of  expression  may  be  used  by  different  per 
sons  in  different  senses8;  that  we  actually  agree  with  many 
dissenters  in  all  the  fundamentals9  of  natural  and  revealed 
religion,  and  differ  in  scarce  any  thing  which  the  human  mind 
can  comprehend — in  scarce  any  thing,  except  what  belongs  to 
the  Essence  of  God,  or  what  is  to  be  done  on  the  part  of  God. 
How  childish  were  it,  for  instance,  not  to  allow  those  faculties 
to  be  infinite  to  which  no  limit  could  be  assigned  !  The  dissent 
ers  cannot  limit  the  duration  of  him  who  was  "  in  the  begin 
ning,11  nor  the  power  of  him  by  whom  all  things  were  created, 
nor  the  majesty  of  him  to  whom  every  knee  shall  bow  ;  why 
then  not  allow  them  unlimited  ?  that  is,  infinite  ? 

But  our  proper  business  is  now  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ;  and  that  as  distinct  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity 
of  the  Son  or  Holy  Ghost.  The  chief  business,  in  mysterious 
doctrines,  seems  to  be,  to  get  scriptural  forms  of  expression, 
which  all  might  agree  to,  though  in  different  senses.  We  have 
already  mentioned  a  form  of  address  to  the  Son  of  God ;  and 

fi  Book  111.  chap.  iv.  sect.  !».  Mll.iv.l.  "  III.  iv.  f>.  "III.  v.3. 


518  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  i.  15. 

we  will  endeavour  to  imagine  one  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  under  the  II. 
5th  Article.  The  term  Trinity  not  being  scriptural,  we  can 
not  adhere  to  Scripture  and  use  that;  but,  as  we  recommended 
to  our  Church  to  drop  it,  we  may  recommend  to  dissenters  not 
to  quarrel  with  it.  The  thing  is  in  Scripture,  what  signifies 
the  word  ?  why  reject  Trinity,  and  use  Triumvirate  ?  It  does 
not  of  itself  imply  that  the  three  Persons  are  divine :  it  only 
implies  that  they  are,  in  Scripture,  (and  ought  to  be  by  Chris 
tians,)  so  frequently  mentioned  together  as  to  make  it  worth 
while  to  have  a  collective  name  for  them.  If  it  is  said,  that, 
when  our  Church  drops  the  term,  the  dissenters  need  not  adopt 
it,  the  answer  is  already  given ;  both  measures  need  not  be 
practised,  but  both  may  be  recommended  till  one  is  practised.  260 
Each  would  make  the  other  more  readily  submitted  to:  and 
recommending  both  is  the  most  likely  method  to  accomplish 
one.  Even  if  no  other  sense  could  be  annexed  to  the  word 
Trinity  but  our  orthodox  one,  the  most  that  could  be  said 
would  be,  that  we  wish  dissenters  not  to  reject  a  word,  which  is 
unmeaning;  and  which  expresses  briefly  a  doctrine,  that  we 
think  it  our  duty  to  record  and  proclaim,  though  we  do  not 
comprehend  it. 

In  the  present  case,  the  dissenters,  as  it  seems  from  the 
nature  of  the  thing,  might  more  easily  come  over  to  us,  than  we 
to  them.  If  we  join  them,  we  must  deny  to  the  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost  that  honour  which  appears  to  us  to  be  due  to  them  :  this 
we  cannot  do  without  violating  those  relative  duties  which  we 
conceive  may  be  important.  The  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  seem  to 
be  set  forth  in  Scripture  as  instrumental  in  the  salvation  of 
mankind  :  we  dare  not  prefer  any  plan  of  our  own  to  that 
which  seems  to  us  divine.  But,  if  they  join  us,  all  they  need  do 
is,  to  use,  or  perhaps  be  present  while  we  use,  a  few  unmeaning 
words.  Every  one  gives  up  something,  as  an  individual,  for  the 
good  which  he  receives  as  a  member  of  society ;  what  easier 
sacrifice  than  this  can  be  made  to  social  religion  ?  So  long  as 
we  clearly  maintain  the  Unity  of  God,  why  need  others  scruple 
a  few  unmeaning  sounds  merely  because  they  seem  to  interfere 
with  it  ?  If  they  draw  up  any  other  forms  of  words  to  contra 
dict  ours,  those  forms  must  have  as  little  meaning  as  ours  ', 
considered  only  as  a  contradiction.  And  can  it  be  conceived 
possible,  that  the  omniscient  Judge  would  condemn  any  person 
for  such  a  compliance  as  is  here  meant,  when  his  only  motive  for 

1  See  Book  III.  chap.  x.  sect.  3. 


IV.  i.  16.] 


THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 


519 


II.  making  it  was  a  desire  to  promote  the  influence  of  religion,   by 

261  strengthening  religious  society?  and  when  he  does  no  more  from 
that  motive  than  he  probably  does  on  other 2  occasions  for  less 
important  ends  ?    It  seems  agreed,  that  giving  a  verbal  assent 
in  ordinary  matters  is  innocent,  as  being  needful,  though  we  do 
not  understand  what  we  assent  to  (as  in  law-forms)  ;  but  it  is 
never  more  needful,  never  more  requisite,  nor  therefore  ever 
more  excusable,  than  in  matters  of  religion. 

I  should  imagine  that  a  perusal  of  Constantine^  s  Letter*  to 
Alexander  and  Arius  might  afford  some  pleasure  to  such  as 
were  inclined  to  adopt  these  sentiments.  It  is  curious  to  see 
how  Voltaire1  forgets  all  his  contempt  of  Constantine,  when  he 
would  give  force  to  this  letter  as  bearing  hard  on  theological 
disputes. 

16.  The  last  part  of  what  we  have  called  the  application 
is,  to  inquire  whether  our  researches  have  given  us  any  reason 
to  think,  that  any  improvements  may  be  made  relative  to  the 
subject  of  our  Article.  It  seems  possible,  that  more  attention 
may  be  paid  to  the  number  of  Trinities,  which  occur  in  an 
cient  writings,  and  that  some  better  account  may  be  given  of 
them  than  has  hitherto  been  given;  but  this  is  mentioned  cur 
sorily.  Some  things  may  deserve  a  more  careful  and  distinct 
attention. 

It  seems  as  if  improvement  might  be  made  in  the  manner  of 
applying  philosophy  to  the  Scriptures ;  or  in  hindering  it  from 

262  being  wrongly  applied  : — such  improvement  I  mean  as  might 
tend  particularly  to  settle  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.     In  the 
present  age  we  are  proud  of  our  philosophy ;  and  we  encourage 
it  so  much  as  to  make  it  sometimes  run  out  into   luxuriance. 
To  reduce  and  prune  luxuriant  shoots,  is  certainly  to  improve. 
Indeed,  Christians  in  all  ages,  especially  those  who  have  prided 
themselves  on  any  opinions,  have  made  too  free  with  Scriptures; 
and  many  parts  of  the  Canon  have  been  rejected,  at  different 
times,  because  they  were,  or  Deemed,  contrary  to  certain   fa 
vourite  preconceived  notions.     The  Manicheans  had  an  abhor 
rence  of  matter;  and  therefore  all  parts  of  Scripture  which 
mentioned  the  uses  of  matter  were  rejected  as  spurious:  the 
whole  Old  Testament  was  cut  off  at  one  stroke.      Our  modern 
philosophers  are  prodigious  friends  of  matter ;  and  therefore 


"  Book  III.  chap.  x.  sect.  1  and  2. 
3  See  Eusebius's  Life  of  Constantine. 
Book  II.  panic,  chap.  64,  6»,  70,  men- 


tioned  in  Lardner's  Account  of  the  Coun 
cil  of  Nice. 

4  Works,  4to,  vol.  xxvu.  p.  452. 


520  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  i.   16. 

Scripture  must  be  construed  so  that  even  the  soul  may  be  ma-  II. 
terial.  To  set  aside  whole  books  of  Scripture  seems  something 
more  gross  than  to  interpret ;  yet,  if  we  set  aside  the  genuine 
sense,  we  may  as  well  set  aside  words  too ;  for,  deprived  of 
their  right  sense,  words  must  either  be  useless,  or  mislead.  But 
we  have  a  new  way  of  lessening  the  force  of  Scriptures  which 
do  not  favour  us.  Instead  of  treating  books  as  spurious,  we 
diminish  the  degree  of  inspiration.  A  sacred  writer,  we  say, 
might  be  biassed  by  his  prejudices ;  he  might  be  mistaken!  we 
must  not  in  all1  cases  trust  too  implicitly!  &c. 

Surely,  when  our  adversaries  go  these  lengths,  they  do  not 
perceive  that  they  are  in  reality  confirming  those  doctrines 
which  they  confess  themselves  unable  to  overthrow,  without 
measures  which  take  away  the  whole  matter  in  dispute.  All 
that  we  affirm  is,  that  supposing  the  Scriptures,  as  we  have 
them,  to  be  divinely  inspired,  so  that  every  thing  in  them  is  263 
truth,  such  and  such  doctrines  are  contained  in  them :  the 
moment  that  our  adversaries  change  any  part  of  this  supposi 
tion,  there  is  no  longer  any  question  between  us.  Dean  Allix, 
in  the  preface  to  his  book  already  quoted,  speaking  of  the  So- 
cinians,  says,  that  their  divisions  occasioned  their  want  of 
success;  and  those  divisions,  he  says,  "will  unavoidably  follow, 
till  they  can  agree  in  unanimously  rejecting  the  authority  of 
Scripture2."  The  book  was  published  in  1699 ;  and  whoever 
compares  the  event  with  the  prediction  will  be  struck  with  the 
sagacity  of  the  author. 

The  implicit  reverence  which  we  ought  to  shew  to  the 
Scriptures  is  well  expressed  in  a  piece  about  Noetus,  the 
Patripassian,  ascribed  to  Hippolytus^  according  to  Lardner's3 
translation:  "The  Scriptures  speak  truth,  but  Noetus  does- 
not  understand  them.  But  though  Noetus  does  not  under 
stand,  the  Scriptures  nevertheless  are  not  to  be  laid  aside." 
Noetus  was  an  Unitarian  of  the  4 ancient  sort:  substitute  a 
modern  one,  the  passage  is  still  applicable.  Dr.  Powell,  who 
had  as  good  pretensions  to  the  character  of  a  philosopher  as 
any  man,  has  written  a  Charge  "  On  the  Use  and  Abuse  of 
Philosophy  in  the  Study  of  Religion ;"  in  which  he  says5,  that 
"the  English  clergy"  "have  wisely  avoided  the  application  of 
it  (philosophy),  where  such  application  is  impertinent  or  pro- 

•   Priestley's    Letters,    pp.   140,    150;       where  there  is  more  said  to  the  purpose 
p.  122  is  strong.  2  P.  xiii.  than  is  here  quoted. 

3  Gardner's    Works,    vol.   in.  p.    1< 


Sect.  5.  5  P. 


IV.  i.  1?.]  THE     HOLY    TRINITY.  521 

II.  fane:  impertinent,  as  in  interpretation6  of  Scripture;   profane, 
as  in  the  judging  of  GocTs  decrees.1' 

264  If  I  may  speak  frankly,  the  truth  of  the  matter  seems  to 
be  this :    The  Trinitarians  have  formed  their  doctrine  in  one 
way,  and  the  Anti-trinitarians   in  another.     The  Trinitarians 
have  collected  their  doctrine  from  Scripture  only :  the  Anti- 
trinitarians,  disgusted   with  the  difficulties  attending  that  me 
thod,  or  with  abuses  of  it,  and  hoping  to  soften  and  moderate 
what  appeared  to  them  harsh  and  uncouth,  have  set  out  from 
notions  of  common  sense,  reason,  natural  religion  ;  and,  taking 
for  granted,  that  Scripture,  if  rightly  interpreted,  must  coin 
cide  with  these,  have  interpreted  it  by  bringing  it  as  near  to 
them  as  possible.     I  should  imagine,  from  their  writings,  that 
they  themselves  would  own  this ;  but,  if  any  of  them  disown  it, 
nothing  more  can  be  said.      However,  I  will  refer  to  a  few 
authorities";  and  then  observe,  that  this  is  not  simple,  genuine 
interpretation  ;  that,  though  it  be  true  in  theory,  that  reason 
and  Scripture  coincide,  yet  in  practice  we  are  not  to  take  for 
granted  that  our  present  reason  is  perfectly  right  reason ;    (ex 
perience  is  against  that ;)  and  supposing  God  to  inform  us  of 

265  any  thing,  it  probably  would  be  something  which  our  reason 
would  be  unlikely  soon  to  find  out. 

17.  If  we  could  accomplish  what  has  just  now  been  recom 
mended,  an  honest  simplicity  of  interpretation,  we  should 
naturally  advance  in  improvement,  by  attending  more  and  more 
minutely  to  the  particular  circumstances  in  which  any  expres 
sions  were  used,  which  seemed  to  interfere  with  each  other. 
In  popular  language,  seeming  contradictions  and  inconsisten- 

Socinian  writings.    See  Short  Defence  of 


''  In  some  ways,  and  some  cases,  I  am 
apt  to  think  philosophy  may  be  of  use  in 
interpreting  Scripture;  as,  for  instance, 
about  voluntary  actions  of  man.  Scrip 
ture  speaks  common  sense  ;  but  it  is  per 
verted,  by  enthusiasm,  or  superstition,  or 
by  being  taken  too  literally.  Perhaps 
there  is  no  remedy  here  like  true  philo 
sophy  ;  for  that  alone  can  unfold  the  real 
meaning  of  popular  expressions,  used 
from  mens  feelings.  I  had  some  such 
idea  when  I  said  that  Bp.  Bnrnet  some 
times  seems  to  want  philosophy.  Introd. 
sect.  15. 

7  See  Socinus  on  John  i.  where  he  ex 
presses  a  fear  lest  Christianity  should 


Divinity  of  Christ,  pp.  25,  27. 

See  also  Mosheim,  vol.  iv.  8vo,  p.  517. 
(or  cent.  16.  sect.  3.  Part  II.  chap.  iv. 
sect  15).  Macknight  somewhere  agrees 
with  Mosheim's  account;  viz.  that  the 
Socinians  take  that  sense  which  is  most 
agreeable  to  reason,  without  nicely  ob 
serving  the  expression  ;  but  I  do  not 
now  find  the  place,  not  having  made  my 
reference  exactly. 

Tillotson  says,  they  attend  to  iranf*, 
as  opposed  to  the  intention  with  which 
those  words  are  introduced  :  but  that  I 
conceive  to  be  only  the  means  of  getting 
opinion  received,  (vol.  u 


become  <-<»tlc>npti/>lc  in  the  whole  world,    j    fol.  p.  112,  on  John  i.  U.) 
The   same  thought   appears   in  modern 


522  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  i.   17. 

cies  perpetually  arise,  or  contradictions  in  words,  when  there  II. 
is  no  inconsistency  whatever  in  the  meaning1.  A  large  list  of 
such  contradictions  might  be  taken  out  of  Scripture,  as  all 
sects  will  allow.  Why  then  might  not  those  seemingly  opposite 
declarations  concerning  the  Divine  Nature,  which  have  given 
occasion  to  different  sects  amongst  Christians,  be  in  some  mea 
sure  reconciled,  if  we  attended  to  circumstances  with  sufficient 
exactness  ?  It  seems  to  me  as  if  much  might  be  hoped  for  from 
this  method.  The  Scriptures  do  not,  in  different  circumstances, 
speak,  in  the  same  way,  of  the  equality  or  subordination  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  and  sometimes  one  situa 
tion  succeeds  another  almost  imperceptibly.  The  17th  chapter 
of  St.  John's  Gospel  may  afford  an  instance.  When  Christ 
prays  to  the  Father  in  the  character  of  a  man  sent  to  teach, 
&c.  he  speaks  with  propriety,  as  if  the  Father  were  "  the  only 
God"  and  he  himself  a  man.  But,  when  he  speaks  in  circum 
stances  which  imply  his  earthly  office  to  be  expired,  then  he 
makes  himself  equal  with  God.  In  this  light,  compare  verse  3 
with  verse  4  and  verse  11,  looking  back  to  John  x.  30,  with  a 
reference  to  Leviticus  xxiv.  16.  In  verse  3,  he  says,  "  this  is 
life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  But,  when  he  has  once  266* 
said,  "  I  have  finished  the  work  which  thou  gavest  me  to  do," 
(verse  4,)  then  another  scene  opens  upon  us:  we  are  in  heaven — 
Christ  is  ascended  to  the  "right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high;" 
the  earthly  things,  the  earthly  offices  of  the  Messiah,  are 
vanished  ;  and,  if  we  give  into  this  conception,  we  shall  rightly 
feel  and  understand  what  follows:  "And  now,  O  Father, 
glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was."  In  like  manner,  verse  11, 
"  And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,  but  these  are  in  the 
world" — keep  them — "that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are" 
Christ  had  before  said,  (John  x.  30,)  "  I  and  my  Father  are 
one"  and  had  been  near  being  stoned,  (according  to  Lev.  xxiv. 
16,)  for  using  an  expression  so  like  blasphemy. 

Macknight  looks2  upon  his  oneness  as  not  being  unity  of 
Person  (or  perhaps  we  should  say,  of  substance,)  but  only  6t  a 
perfect  union  of  counsels  and  designs.'1'1  Yet  St.  Paul  says, 
"  who,  (what  man,  or.  finite  being)  hath  known  the  mind  of 
the  Lord?  or  3 who  hath  been  his  counsellor?"  I,  for- my 
part,  can  put  no  limit  to  the  wisdom  of  him  who  has  "  a  perfect 

1  Book  I.  chap.  x.  sect.  10.  3  On  the  place,  p.  569.  3  Rom.  xi.  34. 


VI.  1.   I?-]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  523 

II.  union  of  counsels  and  designs'"  with  the  Deity.  I  think  no 
finite  being  could  use  such  language  as  Christ  uses,  though  it 
may  not  convey  a  definite  idea  to  us,  about  being  one  with  the 
Father,  without  the  greatest  arrogance  and  presumption.  Was 
Christ  then  arrogant?  Consider  the  lowliness  of  his  character; 
the  humble  simplicity  of  this  affecting  prayer.  Read  verse  21 
and  22.  He  who  had  a  right  to  utter  such  things,  and  was 
humble  while  he  uttered  them,  can  have  nothing  too  great  con 
ceived  of  him.  But  we  must  not  encroach  too  much  on  the 
subject  of  the  second  Article. 

26?  St.  Paul  says4,  "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father, 
of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him."  This  verse, 
taken  by  itself,  might  lead  us  to  think  that  the  Father  only 
was  to  be  considered  as  God,  and  the  Son  as  having  some  kind 
of  authority,  not  divine,  which  made  him  to  be  entitled  Lord. 
But,  if  we  consider  the  circumstances  in  which  the  verse  is 
introduced,  I  think  it  will  clearly  favour  our  doctrines.  St. 
Paul  is  giving  his  directions  to  the  converts  about  their  par 
taking  of  the  heathen  sacrifices,  or  feasts  upon  the  sacrifices ; 
or,  as  our  Bible  expresses  it,  eating  things  "  offered  in  sacrifice 
to  idols"  He  tells  them,  "  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world," 
no  real  object  of  worship;  there  is  but  one  object  of  reasonable 
worship,  the  one  supreme  God;  but  then,  as  if  recollecting, 
that  this  saying,  however  true,  might  mislead  the  converts,  with 
regard  to  the  dignity  of  the  character  of  Christ,  now  in  heaven, 
and  prevent  their  addressing  any  adorations  to  him,  he  proceeds 
to  mention  Christ  as  a  right  object  of  worship,  (the  worship  of 
him  being  supposed  some  how  consistent  with  the  worship  of 
the  one  true  God,)  only  making  some  variety  in  his  expression. 
He  calls  him  Lord,  instead  of  God.  The  word  God  having 
been  used  before,  the  repetition  of  it,  in  this  case,  might  sound 
unpleasing  ;  or  even  like  polytheism  ;  but  he  calls  him  by  a  title 
which  had  belonged  to  Jehovah,  and  by  which  the  one  Supreme 
God  might  at  any  time  be  lawfully  addressed.  Nothing  can  be 
more  clear  to  me,  than  that  St.  Paul  meant  to  oppose  right  ob 
jects  of  worship  to  wrong  ones ;  and  that  he  mentions  Jesus 

268  Christ  as  a  right  one.  By  calling  him  Lord,  he  could  not  mean 
to  deny  that  he  was  God;  any  more  than  by  calling  the  Father 
God,  to  deny  that  he  was  Lord.  If  Christ  is  not  God,  because 

4  1  Cor.  viii.  6 — P.  S.  Up.  Pearson  has  a  short  remark  on  this  text,  p.  251,  on  Creed, 
1st.  ed.—orp.  126, /o/.  ed. 


524»  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  1.  17. 

there  is  but  one  God,  we  must  say  that  the  Father  is  not  Lord ;  II. 
for  St.  Paul  tells  us  here  expressly,  there  is  but  "  one  Lord." 

St.  Paul  says,  that,  amongst  the  heathens,  there  are  "  gods 
many,  and  lords  many;"  and  then  adds,  that  we  Christians 
have  but  one  God,  and  one  Lord  :  making  the  Father  corre 
spond,  in  some  sort,  to  the  heathen  gods,  the  Son  to  the  heathen 
lords.  This  induces  Mr.  Locke1  to  conclude,  that  Christ  is 
called  Lord  here  only  as  our  Mediator,  not  in  his  divine  cha 
racter.  Though  there  does  seem  some  analogy  intended  be 
tween  the  heathen2  lords,  or  "  lords  many"  and  our  Lord 
Christ,  yet  that,  I  think,  cannot  destroy  the  force  of  the 
reasoning  just  now  used.  I  should  rather  say,  therefore, 
that  Christ  is  Lord  both  as  mediator,  and  on  account  of  the 
glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  "  before  the  world  was3.1' 
This  is  also  Bishop  Pearson's4  opinion,  and  the  most  scriptu 
ral.  Besides,  the  description  immediately  following  the  men 
tion  of  Jesus  Christ  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  idea  of 
Mediator,  as  of  Creator — "  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by 
him.""  And  let  any  one  compare  this  with  what  is  said  in  like 
manner  of  the  Father:  "of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  269 
him."  Let  him,  who  can,  interpret  these  two  descriptions,  so 
as  to  shew  that  the  one  belongs  to  a  Being  purely  divine,  the 
other  to  a  Being  merely  human.  I  do  not  say  that  these  de 
scriptions  convey  distinct  ideas,  or  are  intended  to  do  so ;  but 
they  prevent  our  assigning  limits  to  the  attributes  of  the  Per 
sons  described. 

More  instances  might  be  produced  of  the  Son  being  spoken 
of  differently  in  different  circumstances;  in  which  the  con 
sideration  of  the  circumstances  would  remove,  or  account  for, 
any  seeming  inconsistency :  but  the  notion  being  sufficiently 
opened,  I  will  confine  myself  to  remarking,  that  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  that  learned,  candid,  and  valuable  writer,  might  have 
corrected  and  improved,  as  it  seems  to  me,  some  of  his  observ 
ations,  relative  to  our  present  subject,  by  that  attention  to 
circumstances  which  we  are  now  recommending.  He  quotes 
many  texts  in  which  he  seems  to  think  that  the  word  "  God" 


1  Locke  on  1  Cor.  viii.  0. 

2  Hume  (Nat.  Hist,  of  Rel.  sect.  4) 
shews,  that  deities  were  not  always  con- 


lords,  or  lorA-agents,  who  were  supposed 
to  reside  on  earth,  and  do  all  business 
between  men  and  the  9eoi — the  Geoi 


sidered  as  creators  of  the  world.    Mr.  !   being  too  great  to  transact  business  with 

Locke's  distinction  is,  into  6eoi,  gods,  j   men  immediately.    Locke  refers  to  Mede. 
who  were  supposed  to  reside  in  heaven,          3  John  xvii.  5. 
and   Aat/AOj/es    (answering  to   liaalhn),          *  See  the  passage  just  now  referred  to. 


IV.  i.  17.] 


THK     HOLY     TRINITY. 


525 


II.  is  equivalent  to  the  Father ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  should  be 
observed,  that  God  is  very  frequently  spoken  of  in  Scripture 
without  any  relation  to  the  distinction  of  Persons  in  the  Holy 
Trinity — as  we  should  speak  of  him  in  reasonings  on  natural 
religion,  in  shewing  his  power  and  wisdom  in  the  works  of  the 

270  creation5.  To  introduce  the  distinction  of  Persons  seems  often 
unnecessary,  (always,  perhaps,  except  when  we  are  concerned 
with  the  Christian  plan  of  sanctifying  and  saving  mankind;) 
and,  when  it  is  unnecessary,  it  may  also  sometimes  be  improper. 
However,  I  should  think  the  word  "  God"  must  be,  generally 
speaking,  rather  equivalent  to  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity, 
than  to  any  one  of  them6. 

With  regard  to  Christ  in  particular,  when  he  addresses 
himself  in  his  human  character  to  God,  or  speaks  of  him  to  the 
Jews,  he  calls  him  not  so  much  his  God  as  his  Father — some 
times  the  Father.  But  even  this  word  "  Father"  does  not 
seem  always  to  mean  the  Father  in  the  Trinity.  I  should 
conceive  it  to  mean,  in  many  cases,  God  in  general,  if  we  may 
so  speak — God,  as  independent  of  the  trinitarian  distinction  of 
Persons.  When  we  say,  "  Our  Father,  which  art  in  heaven," 
we  mean  the  one  Supreme7  God,  not  one  Person  of  the  Trinity  ; 
and  Christ  would  naturally  use  the  term  more  frequently  than 
we ;  though  not  so  often  as  he  does,  I  should  think,  if  the 
Socinian  hypothesis  were  well  founded — if  Christ  were  a  mere 
man,  and  only  an  human  teacher,  supernaturally  assisted  :  he 
would,  in  that  case,  rather  call  God  his  Lord,  his  Sovereign, 
or  &c.  In  some  places,  particularly  where  the  Son  speaks  of 
his  existence  "  before  the  world  was,"  or  after  the  consumma 
tion  of  all  things,  the  word  "  Father "  may  signify  the  Person 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  so  called;  but  that  the  word  "God" 


5  In  2  Cor.  xiii.  14,  ("  the  grace  of  our 
Lord,"  &c.)  and  in  other  places,  (see 
Clarke's  Scrip.  Doctrine  Trin.  Part  I. 
chap.  iv.  also  Part  I.  chap.  i.  sect.  1,2). 
the  word  God  does  seem  to  be  used 
where  the  Father,  a  Person  of  the  Tri 
nity,  might  be  used ;  but  my  idea  is 
something  of  this  sort:  suppose  three 
persons  joined  in  a  civil  government, 
after  the  manner  of  the  Roman  trium 
virate,  and  two  of  them  went  out  in 
certain  offices,  (to  head  an  army,  treat 
with  foreign  princes,  &c.)  then  he  who 
remained,  and  was  merely  sovereign, 
might  be  called  sovereign,  when  the 


others  were  called  general,  admiral,  am 
bassador,  or  &c.  Nor  would  it  follow 
that  those  who  were  from  home  had  no 
sovereign  power. 

6  Bp.  Pearson  (Creed,  Art.  I.  p.  59, 
1st  edit.)  has  this  distinction,  which  he 
calls  "vulgar"   that  is,   common;  be 
tween  the  Father  personally  considered, 
or  as  a  Person  of  the  Trinity ;  and  essen 
tially  considered,  "as  comprehending  the 
whole  Trinity" 

7  This  language  is  used  by  Pope  in 
his  Universal  Prayer,  "Father  of  all," 
&c.;  by  Milton,  "  These  are  thy  glorious 
works,  Parent  of  good." 


526  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  i.  17- 

should  denote  the  Father,  in  ordinary  discourses  in  the  New  II. 
Testament,  seems  very  unlikely.  271 

St.  Mark  gives  an  account  of  a  dialogue  between  our 
Saviour  and  a  Jewish  scribe:  they  seem  to  agree  about  the 
Unity  of  God.  Christ  says,  "  The  Lord  our  God  is  one * 
Lord  ;"  or,  he  is  one :  the  scribe  says,  "  there  is  one  God,  and 
there  is  none  other  but  he.""  But  this  has  no  more  concern 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it  appears  to  me,  than  if 
that  doctrine  had  never  been  revealed.  The  Unity  of  God  is 
here  only  opposed  to  polytheism  and  idolatry;  the  scribe  could 
have  nothing  else  in  his  mind  ;  yet  Dr.  Clarke  says,  that,  in 
this  place,  what  is  said  of  God  is  predicated 3  of  the  Father ; 
that  is,  of  the  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  usually  mentioned 
first.  Surely,  a  due  attention  to  circumstances  would  have 
prevented  this  remark.  The  scribe  knew  that  the  fundamental 
principle  of  the  Mosaic  law  was,  'avoid  the  polytheism  and 
idolatry  of  your  neighbours.1  When,  therefore,  he  heard  Jesus 
quote  out  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy3,  "  Hear,  O  Israel;  the 
Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord,"  he  could  agree  to  the  notion,  that 
this  was  "  the  first  commandment  of  all,"  in  no  sense  but  this : 
<  the  command,  which  we  Jews  ought  to  consider  as  principal, 
is  to  keep  clear  of  the  polytheism  and  idolatry  with  which  our 
neighbours  are  corrupted.  Jehovah  is  the  only  object  of  rational 
worship.  Chemosh,  Moloch,  Remphan,  are  all  abominations : 
nay,  even  the  host  of  heaven,  though  they  declare  the  glory  of  272 
God,  are  not  themselves  to  be  worshipped/ 

Dr.  Clarke  has  not  noticed  the  difference  of  circumstances 
mentioned  above  in  explaining  the  11  th  Chapter  of  St.  John's 
Gospel. 

I  may  be  permitted  to  add,  that  the  Council 4  of  Carthage 
ordered  all  prayers  offered  at  the  altar  to  be  addressed  to  the 
Father  only.  I  presume  that  the  notion  of  the  council  might 
be  this : — that,  when  we  are  at  the  altar,  while  we  keep  up  the 
strict  notion  of  an  altar,  we  look  upon  Christ  in  the  light  of  a 
victim — of  the  Lamb  of  God,  sacrificed  for  the  sins  of  the 
world :  now  no  men  ever  pray  to  a  victim.  Bingham  says 


Mark  xii.  ver.  29,  32. 


2  Clarke's  Scripture-doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  Part  I.  chap.  i.  sect.  1  and  2, 
where  the  texts  stand  in  the  order  of 
Scripture.  By  the  way,  it  appears,  I 
think,  from  this  part,  that  Atlianas'ms 
overlooked  the  distinction  between  God, 


considered  independently  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  and  the  Father,  a  Person 
of  the  Trinity.  3  Deut.  vi.  4. 

4  Bingham,  13.  2.  5,  refers  to  the  third 
Council  of  Carthage,  (Can.  23,)  which, 
according  to  Cave,  (Hist.  Lit.)  was  held  » 
A.  D.  252. 


IV.  i.   18.]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  527 

II.  much  the  same5.  Mr.  Gibbon  will  have  it  that  Christians  have 
the  same  being  for  God  and  victim.  Christ  is  God  in  one 
view,  and  victim  in  another  view  ;  but  these  are  not  to  be  con 
founded  :  and  the  council  might  aim  at  avoiding  such  confusion. 
18.  It  would  be  a  considerable  improvement  if  we  were  to 
increase  our  caution  (and  we  could  not  easily  increase  it  too 
much)  in  connecting  any  propositions  which  we  do  not  under 
stand,  or  in  forming  them  into  any  kind  of  syllogism,  or  argu 
ment.  For,  when  we  do  so,  our  reasoning  is  merely  verbal,  it 
has  no  meaning  ;  and  yet  by  the  use  of  it  we  may  get  into 
hurtful  absurdities,  which  may  disgust  religious  and  rational 
men.  Some  great  writers  seem  to  have  fallen  into  this  fault  ; 
and  they  have  done  harm  by  it  to  the  general  cause  of  Christi 
anity.  I  fear  I  might  instance  in  Bishop  Pearson,  Bishop 
Burnet,  and  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  as  well  as  in  ancient  writers. 

273  The  Patripassians  were  so  called  from  their  being  said  to 
maintain  that  the  Father  suffered  on  the  Cross.  I  suppose 
they  were  Unitarians  of  the  6  ancient  sort  :  they  made  too  little 
(or  no)  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  from 
whence,  it  seems  probable,  that  their  adversaries  made  them 
reason  thus  :  '  The  Son  suffered  ;  the  Father  and  the  Son  are 
one  ;  therefore  the  Father  suffered.1  Whoever  reasoned  thus, 
the  fallacy  is  the  same  7.  The  reasoning  may  not  be  illogical 
in  its  form,  but  two  ideas  could  not  be  compared  with  a  middle 
term,  when  in  reality  there  were  no  ideas  to  compare;  but  only 
words  standing  in  the  place  of  ideas.  When  we  say,  '  the  Fa 
ther  and  the  Son  are  one,"*  we  have  not  comprehension  enough 
of  the  meaning  to  ground  any  reasoning  upon.  By  the  way, 
it  has  not  always  been  thought  proper  to  say  even  that  the  Son 
suffered;  if  we  mean  by  the  Son  one  Person  of  the  Holy  Tri 
nity  ;  though  Jesus  Christ,  who,  in  some  sense,  was  the  Son 
of  God,  suffered  indisputably.  But  I  do  not  wish  to  revive  the 
controversy  of  the  6'th  century,  De  uno  ex  Trinitate  passo  8. 

In  the  time  of  St.  Ambrose,  baptism  was  sometimes  admi 
nistered  only  in  the  name  of  Christ.  That  great  father,  wishing 
probably  to  soften  contention,  runs  into  the  fallacy  here  spoken 
of9,  when  he  urges,  that  baptizing,  in  the  name  of  Christ  only, 
is,  in  effect,  baptizing  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 

'  Card'  Noris  wr°te  a  1™t°      °f  this 


See  Aug.  User.  41 ;  or  Lard.  Works, 


vol.  in.  p.  13. 


•  Bingham's  Antiquities,  13.  2.  5.  f    u 

controversy,  which  is  quoted  by  Mosheim, 

Oth  cent.  vol.  n.  8vo,  p. 


De  Spirit  u  Sancto,  lib.  i.  cap.  3.  See 


Bingham,  11.  3.  3. 


528 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  i.  18. 


Ghost,  because  they  are  one.      Origen  seems  more  reasonable,  II. 
when  he1  says,  it  would  have  been  improper  in  St.  Paul,  speak-  274 
ing  of  baptizing  into  the  death  2  of  Christ,  to  mention  the  Fa 
ther  and  Holy  Ghost ;   they  having  nothing  to  do  with  death. 
Origen  here  suits  himself  to  circumstances. 

In  this  train  of  thinking,  we  cannot  but  pity  the  sufferings 
of  Nestorius.  He  would  not  call  the  Virgin  Mary  Ocoro/co?, 
though  he  had  no  objection  to  calling  her  XpiarroroKos.  '  What 
perverseness  !'  his  adversaries  would  say :  '  Mary  was  the  mo 
ther  of  Christ ;  Christ  is  God ;  therefore  was  not  Mary  the 
mother  of  God?'  But  the  fault  was  more  in  this  syllogism 
than  in  Nestorius.  When  we  say,  '  Christ  is  God,1  our  ideas 
are  not  distinct ;  we  cannot  argue  on  such  a  proposition 3. 
Nestorius  probably  felt  or  saw  this.  An  human  being  the 
mother  of  her  own  Creator !  was  more  than  he  could  admit ; 
and  his  sufferings  are  a  disgrace  to  the  religion  of  his  age. 
Christ,  when  considered  as  the  Son  of  Mary,  should  not  be 
confounded  with  Christ  as  being  in  the  form  of  God,  before  his 
incarnation ;  or  as  being  "  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,1' 
after  his  ascension.  The  orthodox  language  is,  that  Christ  had 
two  natures  in  one  Person;  to  which  I  have  no  objection,  as 
things  divine  and  things  human  are  predicated  of  Christ,  as  of 
one  agent  or  person;  and  this  language  brings  all  the  texts  into 
one  view.  But  still  it  is  barbarous  to  persecute  a  man  because 
he  cannot  get  over  such  difficulties  as  those  of  Nestorius  just 
now  mentioned.  Neither  do  we  say,  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
are  Gods ;  though  we  say  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
God. 

This  will  let  us  know  what  we  are  to  think  of  some  expres 
sions,  which  we  meet  with  now  and  then,  particularly  in  infidel  275 
writers; — about  Papists  eating*  their  God — a  crucified  God 
— our  saying  that  the  Jews  were  murderers  of  God;  &c. — 
our  having  the  same  being,  as  God  and  victim  (Gibbon) — 
"  decree  of  the  Holy  Trinity  V  They  are  all  wrong  expres 
sions;  as  arising  from  inferring,  where  inference  cannot  be  ad 
mitted. 


1  SeeBingham,  11.3.  10. 

2  Rom.  vi.  3. 

3  Bp.  Pearson  calls  the  Virgin  Mary, 
"the  mother  of  the  Son  of  God."    On 
Creed,  p.  346,  1st  ed. 

4  Hume's  Nat.  Hist,  of  Religion,  sect. 
12,  paragraph  2  and  4. 


5  Heylin  Quinq.  2.  8.  5.  "  Suscipe 
sancta  Trinitas,"  p.  37,  of  Present  spi- 
rituel ;  and  p.  58,  "  placeat  tihi  sancta 
Trinitas."  P.  20,  u  Seigneur,  je  vous  ai 
recu."  Present  spirituel  is  a  little  French 
prayer-book. 


IV.  i.  18.] 


THE    HOLY     TRINITY. 


.529 


II.  I  cannot  say  but  I  feel  some  difficulty  about  Acts  xx.  28 — 
and  some  indulgence  for  those  who  derive  expressions,  from  that 
passage,  which  do  not  seem  justifiable.  Bishop  Pearson6  and 
Bishop  Burnet7  both  use  this  expression,  "  the  blood  of  God*." 
I  should  not  dare  to  use  it.  I  should  be  more  inclined  to  say, 
there  is  no  such  9  expression  in  Scripture.  In  strictness  there 
is  not ;  nay,  I  do  not  believe  that  any  of  the  sacred  writers 
would  have  used  it.  They  seem  to  come  very  near  it,  in  the 

276  passage  now  referred  to ;  but  it  seems  to  be  because  the  course 
of  the  sentence  led  them  to  it.  "  God"  was  in  the  first  part  or 
member  of  the  sentence  ;  and  perhaps  "  Christ"  would  have 
been  put  in  the  second  part,  if  it  had  required  no  force  to  make 
the  change;  but,  as  Christ  was  God  as  well  as  man,  and  as  no 
wrong  notion  could  arise  out  of  the  expression,  the  reasons 
might  seem  strongest  against  interrupting  the  course  of  the 
sentence  :  but  this  I  am  no  way  positive  about.  The  'Church10 
of  Christ"  might  have  been  a  very  good  expression  ;  but  St. 
Paul  was  very  earnest — wanted  to  use  as  strong  an  expression 
as  possible.  However  all  this  may  be,  I  am  in  general  against 
changing  the  expressions  of  Scripture  in  any  degree,  in  things 
above  our  comprehension,  when  it  can  be  avoided  n. 

Is  not  this  speaking  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 
I  imagine  many  Trinitarians  would  allow,  that  it  might  have 
been  as  well  if  the  doctrine  had  continued  in  that  indejinite 
state  in  which  it  was  before  Christians  engaged  in  controversy 
about  it.  To  assent  to  it  is  not  to  declare  that  you  would 
have  put  the  doctrine  into  its  present  form,  had  you  had  your 
choice.  It  is  not  to  approve  of  such  a  measure,  though  I  think 


6  On  Creed,  p.  257,  fol. 

7  On  Article  2d,  p.  57,  octavo. 

8  Bp.   Pearson  says   (Creed,  Art.  4, 
Dead,  p.  434,  1st  Edit.)  "God  died  for 
MS,"  has  been  the  constant  language  of 
the    Church.    Whereas    Lardner    says, 
(Her.  Praxeas,  sect.  8,)  "no  man  ever 
allowed    that    proper    Deity    suffered." 
Bp.  Pearson  means,  that  person  died,  of 
whom  things  both  divine  and  human  are 
predicated,  so  that  in  one  person  he  is 
said  to  have  two  natures ;  so  that  birth, 
suffering,   and  death,   &c.   are  all  pre 
dicated  of  him.     We  should  be  aware  of 
the  reading  of  Acts  xx.  28,  6«z  TOV  dipa- 
TOS  TOU  ioiov  ;  as  well  as  that  Bp.  Pearson 
says,  and  proves,  that  the  Divine  Nature 

VOL.  I. 


I    cannot  suffer,  and  that  Christ  did  not  suf- 
|   fer  in  his  Divine  Nature.     See  Art.  4, 

pp.  379,  380,  &c.  1st  edit.,  or  p.  187,  &c. 

fol. 

9  P.  S.    In  this  I  find  myself  agreeing 
with  Dr.  Priestley,  and  disagreeing  with 
the  author  of  the  Short  Defence  of  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,    near    end   of   Ap 
pendix. 

10  Acts  xx.  28. 

11  What  I  have  said  on  Acts  xx.  28, 
does   not  prevent  its  being  used  as  an 
argument   for   the   Divinity  of    Christ; 
because  it  seems  clear  that  such  language 
would  not  have  been  used  if  Christ  was 
not,  in  some  views,  to  be  considered  as 
Divine. 

34 


530  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  1.  19. 

it  may  be  approved  on  a  principle  of  self-defence.  As  to  the  II. 
word  Trinity,  though  it  be  not  scriptural,  and  though  I  would 
give  it  up,  I  think  it  perfectly  harmless  and  unexceptionable ; 
— on  the  principle  already  mentioned,  that  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  occur  so  often  in  Scripture,  and  ought  to  occur 
so  often  in  discourses  on  baptism,  &c.,  that  a  collective  name 
for  them  is  highly  proper  and  reasonable. 

As  to  1  John  iii.  16,  as  the  word  Oeou  is  not  in  our  Testa-  277 
ments,  and  therefore  the  words  "  of  God"  are  in  italics,  we  need 
not  dwell  upon  it. 

19.  I  do  not  see  why  it  might  not  be  a  subject  of  inquiry, 
whether  the  word  God  is  always  used  in  the  same  precise  sense 
in  Scripture,  as  implying  the  same  power,  wisdom,  &c.  ?  Such 
an  inquiry  ought  not  to  determine  any  thing,  but  only  to  open 
our  views.  We  do  not  want  it  for  ourselves ;  as  our  arguments 
go  to  prove  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
highest  sense;  but  only  to  give  some  ease  and  relief  to  those 
who  are  shocked  with  our  doctrines — to  open  a  path  by  which 
they  might  possibly  be  able  to  join  us.  Particularly  such  an 
inquiry  might  be  a  means  of  uniting  different  sects  of  Christians 
in  that,  which  seemed  most  difficult,  in  offering  up  addresses 
to  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  I  use  the  more  words  for  fear  an 
innocent  expedient  should  give  offence  to  any  well-meaning 
person.  Those  who  should  engage  in  such  an  inquiry  would 
examine  John  i.  1,  where  it  is  said,  that  the  same  Being  (the 
Word)  "  was  with  God"  and  "  was  God"  They  would  consider 
whether  this  could  be  without  a  plurality  of  Gods,  if  the  word 
God  was  used  both  times  in  precisely  the  same  sense ].  They 
would  consider  John  x.  34,  (with  Psalm  Lxxxii.  6,)  where  Christ 
tells  the  Jews  that  they  could  not  consistently  stone  him  for 
blasphemy,  in  calling  himself  the  Son  of  God ;  because  they  ac 
knowledged  those  persons  to  be  gods  who  were  inferior  to  him 
— who  could  not  do  the  works  that  he  did.  Christian  readers 
would  see  that  the  reasoning  of  our  Saviour  had  in  it  something 
of  the  nature  of  the  argumentum  ad  hominem;  and  therefore  278 
they  would  think  whether  he  would  have  blamed  the  Jews  for 
calling  him  God  in  an  inferior  sense.  It  would  occur  to  them, 
that,  in  the  imperfection  of  human  language,  a  word  was  often 
used  to  express  one  kind  of  thing  in  different  degrees;  as  a 
king  of  Spain  and  a  king  of  Cherokees  have  very  different  de- 

1  See  Theophylact's  answer  to  Porphyry's  cavil,  mentioned  in  Lardner's  Works, 
vol.  vin.  p.  211. 


IV.  i.  20.]  THE    HOLY    TRINITY.  531 

II.  grees  of  power,  though  both  are  called  kings :  and  also  that 
one  person  had  in  Scripture  different  titles  in  different  circum 
stances,  without  any  change  taking  place  in  that  person — as 
Moses  was  a  god  and  a  servant*,  without  any  actual  alteration 
in  his  condition.  Such  inquirers  might  debate,  whether  things 
might  not  be  represented  to  us  with  some  accommodation  to 
our  faculties — as  if  when  it  was  said  such  a  being  was  divine, 
the  meaning  was,  in  strictness,  only  that  we  should  act  and 
speak  as  if  he  was  so. 

Perhaps  nothing  material  could  be  objected  to  an  inquiry 
of  this  nature ;  nevertheless,  the  result  of  it  could  scarcely  be 
more  than  this  : — '  We  do  not  absolutely  conclude,  that  under 
standing  the  word  God  in  different  degrees,  as  it  were,  would 
solve  difficulties  relating  to  the  Trinity;  but  every  opportunity 
of  freely  thinking,  whether  something  of  this  sort  might  not 
possibly  have  some  concern  with  the  matter,  must  needs  occa 
sion  a  degree  of  ease  and  satisfaction  to  a  mind  fatigued  with 
doubt  and  perplexity 3. ' 

20.  The  last  improvement  I  shall  mention  is  what  consists 
279  in  discerning  more  and  more  clearly  the  uses 4  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  These  should  always  have  our  diligent  atten 
tion;  but,  at  the  same  time,  we  should  be  very  cautious  lest  we 
lay  too  much  stress  upon  our  own  conjectures.  I  have  already 
said,  that  our  Christian  Trinity  does  not  seem  to  have  sprung 
from  the  fancy5  or  the  ear,  but  from  the  nature  of  things.  I 
have  mentioned  some  reasons  why  we  are  unwilling  to  give  it 
up  to  our  dissenting  brethren 6 ;  but  I  have  hinted,  that  the 
uses  ascribed  to  the  doctrine  are  only  to  be  put  on  the  footing 
of  the  illustrations 7 — not  to  be  considered  as  perfectly  under 
stood,  but  only  as  tending  to  abate  men's  prejudices  against  it. 
I  have  but  little  to  add  :  only  as  the  difficulty  of  the  doctrine 
arises  from  seeming  contradiction  and  inconsistency,  it  might 
be  expected,  that,  when  we  came  to  act  upon  the  different  parts 
of  it,  we  should  find  ourselves  entangled  and  impeded  by  inter 
fering  duties  and  obligations ;  but  that  is  not  the  case.  We 
may  act  and  pray,  to  God ;  to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ; 
as  we  are  commanded  in  Scripture,  and  never  find  ourselves, 


2  Exod.  vii.  1.    Hebr.  iii.  5. 

3  'Avdpwirov  tJ/'i/X'i  T0^  Qe'iov 

XEN.  Mem.  4.  3.  14.    Transl.  Anima 
hominis  de  Divina  Natura  participat. 

divinas  particulam  aura?. — HOR. 

Could  these  expressions  be  of  any  use  ? 


4  Cornish  on  the  Pre-existence  of  Christ, 
and  Waterland's  Importance  of  the  Doc 
trine  of  the  Trinity,  might  be  consulted. 

5  Sect.  3,  near  the  end.        6  Sect.  15. 
7  Sect.  10,   end.    See  Jonathan   Ed- 

wards's  Sermons,  on  Faith,  p.  141. 

34 2 


532 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.          [IV.  1.  Append. 


in  fulfilling  one  duty,  neglecting  another.      On  this  account,  II. 
I  should  say,  that,  though  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  unin 
telligible  in  speculation,  it  is  intelligible  in  practice. 


APPENDIX.  280 

CONCERNING    THE    GENUINENESS    OF    1    JOHN    V.   71. 

I  MIGHT  now  proceed  to  the  second  Article;  but  the  famous 
disputed  text,  1  John  v.  7,  being  usually  acouunted  one  main 
support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  I  may  be  expected  not 
to  pass  it  over,  or  leave  it  undistinguished  amidst  the  forty-eight 
already  mentioned.  Whether  that  text  is  genuine,  being  a 
critical  inquiry,  belongs  properly  to  our  first  Book  ;  but  it  will 
seem  most  worthy  of  attention  in  this  place ;  especially  as  the 
controversy  on  this  subject  is  revived. 

It  has  been  said 2,  that  some  Anti-trinitarians  have  in  some 
degree  favoured  the  genuineness  of  this  text,  and  that  some 
Trinitarians  have  thought  it  spurious.  Who  the  former  are,  I 
do  not  happen  to  know,  or  remember,  at  this  time;  but  amongst 
the  latter  may  be  reckoned  Bentley3,  Michaelis4,  and,  for  a 
time,  Erasmus,  and  even  Dr.  Waterland.  Dr.  S.  Clarke5,  I 
should  add ;  as  I  never  conceive  him  to  be  what  I  should  call 
an  Arian.  We  should  also  add  the  great  Martin  Luther  :  and 
Bishop  Burnet6  seems  inclined  to  reject  the  text. 

Infidels  seem  fond  of  opposing  the  genuineness  of  this  text;  281 
taking  that  occasion  to  revile  the  orthodox  for  fraud  and  forgery. 
Voltaire  blunders7  most  terribly  about  it;  and  Mr.  Gibbon  has 
been  thought  very  hasty  in  his  assertions  respecting  it;  though 
I  think  some  Christians  seem  inclined  to  defend  him 8.  Voltaire 
dates  the  forgery  about  the  time  of  Lactantius,  who  is  placed  in 
306.  Mr.  Gibbon  says,  the  text  was  first  alleged  to  Hunneric 
at  Carthage,  484.  His  date,  in  his  Table  of  Contents,  is  530 ; 

1  This  Appendix  was  written  in  Octo-    |       7  See    his    Works,    4to,    vol.    xxiv. 


ber,  1789. 

2  Bengelius,  Appar.  Crit. 

3  See   Biographia  Britannica,  end  of 
his  life.          4  Introd.  Lect.  Sect.  151. 

6-Vol.  iv.fol.  p.  121. 

6  On  1st  Art.  p.  49,  octavo. 


p.  459;  and  vol.  xxvu.  p.  426.  In  one 
place  he  makes  the  7th  the  disputed 
verse  ;  in  another,  the  8th. 

8  See  his  History,  vol.  in.  p.  544, 
quarto.  Cantabrigiensis  in  Gent.  Mag. 
1788,  and  178!». 


IV.  i.  Append.]  1  JOHN  v.  7.  .533 

II.  but  he  says,  p.  544,  and  545,  "  It  (the  text)  was  first  alleged " 
at  the  Council  of  Carthage,  which,  I  think,  was  484. 

This  text  has  occasioned  much  controversy  in  modern 
times'-1;  but  the  ancients  do  not  seem  to  speak  as  if  there  had 
been  any  disputes  amongst  them  relative  to  it;  nor  do  I  happen 
to  remember  any  controversial  language  about  it,  in  the  short 
writings  of  the  famous  editors  soon  after  the  invention  of 
printing. 

The  chief  opposers  of  the  genuineness  of  the  text  are  Em- 
lyn,  Wetstein,  Michaelis,  Benson,  and  Sir  I.  Newton:  the  chief 
defenders,  Martin  and  Twells  (who  converted  Waterland). 
Bengelius  is  very  candid,  but  favours  the  verse  on  the  whole; 
and  Mill  does  so  decidedly,  after  reckoning  up  an  host  of  argu 
ments  against  it,  which  one  would  think  invincible. 
282  The  question  seemed  going  against  the  genuineness,  till  Mr. 
Travis,  in  1784,  published  some  Letters  to  Mr.  Gibbon,  in 
quarto,  on  the  subject,  in  a  spirited  and  eloquent  style.  The 
year  after,  he  published  a  second  edition,  in  octavo,  with  correc 
tions  and  additions.  These  have  occasioned  some  remarks;  the 
most  formidable  of  which,  that  I  have  seen,  are  published  in 
the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  1788  and  1789,  under  the  signa 
ture  of  Cantabrigiensis.  This  author  professes  to  offer  nothing 
new  10 ;  but  I  suppose  his  animadversions  may  not  be  yet  (Oct. 
28,  1789)  completed;  and  what  he  has  written  he  has  made  his 
own  :  he  has  not  the  style  and  manner  of  a  compiler. 

This  is  all  the  history  of  the  dispute  which  I  will  trouble 
you  with.  The  arguments  on  the  different  sides  are  very  nu 
merous.  I  must  content  myself  with  giving  general  views  of 
them,  and  then  making  a  few  remarks. 

In  order  to  prove  that  the  verse  in  dispute  is  not  genuine, 
it  is  urged  that  it  is  not  found  in  any  Greek  MSS,  or  not  in 
any  of  any  consequence.  One  at  Dublin  and  one  at  Berlin  are 
not  reckoned  to  be  worth  mentioning n.  Voltaire  says,  it  is 


0  1794.  Mr.  Person  in  his  Letters, 
published  1790,  speaks  as  if  this  contro 
versy  had  then  continued  two  centuries 
and  an  half.  See  p.  69.  It  seems  to 
have  begun  with  Erasmus's  publishing 
his  first  editions  without  1  John  v.  7,  and 
the  editors  of  Alcala  and  Stephens  with 
it.  In  the  English  Bibles  of  Hen.  viu. 
it  is  in  a  different  character.  See  Clarke, 
Script.  Doctr.  Part  I.  chap.  iv. 

10  See  Gent.  Mag.  for  Feb.  1789,  p.  101, 
beginning. 


11  In  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for 
June  1789,  I  see  it  is  said,  (p.  514.  col. 
2d,)  "four  of  which"  (eleven)  "omit 
the  disputed  passage."  Are  we  to  con 
clude  that  it  was  found  in  seven  ?  These 
MSS.  are  (or  were)  in  the  King  of 
France's  library.  The  account  is  given 
by  Le  Long,  who  is  supposed  adverse  to 
the  passage,  and  who  says  these  MSS. 
were  what  R.  Stephens  used  for  his  edition 
of  theGr.  Test.  1550. 


534;  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.          [IV.  1.  Append. 

found  in  modern  MSS.,  but  not  in  ancient  ones ;  but  he  does  II. 
not  specify,  nor  must  we  take  our  facts  from  him,  as  he  appears 
ignorant  of  the  question. 

It  is  also  urged,  that  the  verse  is  not  in  those  ancient  writers 
where  one  might  expect  to  find  it ;  as  in  those  who  commented 
on  Scripture,  or  who  were  engaged  in  controversy  about  the  283 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Bede,  for  instance,  placed  by  Lardner 
in  701,  comments  on  the  verses  immediately  before  and  after  it, 
without  noticing  it.  And  the  number  of  these  fathers  who 
have  omitted  this  verse  is  considerable :  indeed  amongst  the 
Greek  fathers,  the  number  is  extremely  small  of  those  who  have 
introduced  it  into  their  writings. 

As  to  versions,  there  is  doubt  whether  it  was  in  the  old 
Italic;  or  whether  it  was  in  the  Armenian;  it  confessedly  was 
not  in  the  Syriac  or  the  Coptic.  Other  versions  are  mentioned 
as  omitting  it;  but  they  do  not  seem  to  have  been  taken  from 
the  original,  but  from  preceding  versions. 

Sometimes  the  7th  verse  is  marginal.  Sometimes  the  order 
of  that  and  the  8th  is1  changed,  which  indicates  an  unsteadiness 
— something  respecting  it,  unfixed,  unsettled.  Sometimes  the 
7th  verse  appears  as  a  sort  of  mystical  interpretation  of  the  8th. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr  Travis  reckons  up  twenty-three 
private  persons,  or  writers,  who  introduce  or  acknowledge 
the  disputed  text :  these  are  all  of  the  Latin  or  Western 
Church,  except  as  Jerom  declares  that  he  had  consulted  Greek 
MSS.  Private  persons,  or  individuals,  are  here  opposed  to 
bodies  of  men :  of  bodies  of  men  ten  are  enumerated  who  use 
or  exhibit  the  Text ;  including  the  Apostolus,  that  is,  the  col 
lection  of  Epistles  in  Greek,  which  were  read  in  the  service  of 
the  Greek  Church.  In  this  number  are  also  included  three 
versions,  out  of  five  original  versions,  the  Armenian,  Jerom's 
Latin,  (or  the  Vulgate),  and  the  old  Italic.  And  a  number 
of  omissions  are  shewn  in  the  Syriac  and  Coptic,  such  as  to 
take  away  the  effect  of  their  omitting  1  John  v.  7.  Only  two 
Greek  fathers  are  adduced  as  having  this  verse,  and  one  of 
those  is  of  the  llth  century.  It  is  said  that  the  Compluten-  284 
sian  editors  and  Robert  Stephens  (and  Valla  and  Erasmus 
before  them)  all  followed  Greek  manuscripts.  They  all  un 
doubtedly  have  the  verse  in  question  ;  though  Erasmus  had  it 
not  in  his  first  two  editions. 

And  now,  what  judgment  is  an  impartial  man  to  form  on 

1  Bengelius  thinks  it  should  be  so. 


IV.  i.  Append.]  1  JOHN  v.  7.  535 

II.  these  grounds?  It  is  not  easy  to  be  quite  impartial,  but  a 
man  may  feel  more  freedom  when  his  determination  will  not 
involve  him  in  any  difficulties,  on  which  side  soever  it  is  made. 
First,  as  to  MSS.,  particularly  the  Greek.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  text  had  been  wanting  in  some  early  ones,  and  of 
course  in  all  those  transcribed  from  them.  But  it  might 
nevertheless  be  afterwards  admitted  reasonably,  or  restored, 
into  the  canon  of  Scripture.  Many  things  are  in  our  Scrip 
tures  now  which  have  been  found  wanting  in  some  MSS.; 
and  those  MSS.  neither  modern,  as  I  conceive,  nor  of  bad 
authority.  Instances  may  be,  Acts  viii.  37;  John  v.  3,  4; 
John  vii.  53 ;  Matt.  xvi.  2,  3  ;  Luke  xxii.  43.  And  the  ac 
count  of  our  Saviour's  treatment  of  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  John  viii.  3 — 11.  These  instances  make  me  more 
easily  fall  into  the  notion,  that  passages  really  written  by  the 
sacred  penman  may  have  been  wanting  in  MSS.  older  than 
any  now  in  being.  And  this  I  apply  to  1  John  v.  7.  But, 
though  our  passage  may  have  been  wanting  in  some  early 
Greek  MSS.,  I  cannot  read  what  is  said  by  the  Complutensian 
editors,  R.  Stephens,  Beza,  and  Erasmus,  nor  by  Valla,  whose 
work  Erasmus  published,  without  believing  that  they  did  see 
it  in  several  valuable  Greek  MSS.  And  I  observe  the  same 
of  Jerom.  All  that  can  make  any  doubt,  with  regard  to  these 
persons,  is  the  force  of  preconceived  notions,  or  that  these 

285  learned  men  might  have  an  opinion,  that,  by  forcing  the  text 
into  their  books,  they  were  doing  service  to  the  pure  doctrine 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  they  would  speak.  But  the  num 
ber  of  the  editors  at  Alcala  is  against  this ;  and  so  is  the 
number  of  the  divines  of  Louvaine ;  (see  Travis,  p.  296, 
octavo;)  and  the  characters  of  the  others,  their  regard  for 
literature  in  general,  and  particularly  for  sacred  learning,  and 
the  circumstance  that  no  doctrine  would  fall  to  the  ground 
by  this  text  being  cancelled.  On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  me 
rather  probable,  that  the  passage  was  in  some  MSS,  as  ancient 
as  any  of  those  which  the  Church  used,  when  it  fixed  upon 
four  Gospels  and  twenty-one  Epistles,  out  of  a  large  mixture 
of  writings,  genuine  and  spurious ;  though  at  the  same  time  it 
might  be  wanting  in  others.  Mr.  Travis  supposes  those  Greek 
MSS.  which  were  used  by  the  first  editors,  or  printers,  to  be 
lost ;  and  that  they  might  be  lost  by  being  neglected  after  they 
had  been  used.  Jeromes  in  Palestine  could  not  be  expected 
to  survive  to  this  time ;  but  destroying  MSS.  after  printing 


536  ARTICLES  OF   RELIGION.       [IV.  i.  Append. 

from  them  seems  too  common  a  practice,  in  general.  The  II. 
best  judgment  that  I  can  form  out  of  what  is  urged  on  both 
sides  relative  to  versions  is,  that  our  disputed  verse  was  in 
the  old  Italic,  because  several  of  the  passages  of  the  Latin 
fathers,  in  which  it  is  introduced,  seem  to  have  been  written 
before  that  ceased  to  be  the  Scripture  of  the  Latin  Church. 
About  Jeromes  Vulgate,  there  is  no  doubt.  To  consider  the 
Armenian,  would  introduce  too  long  a  discussion  for  us.  The 
omissions  in  the  Syriac  and  Coptic  do  seern  very  numerous. 
The  old  Italic  is  of  consequence.  It  was  much  older  than  any 
of  our  Greek  MSS.;  nay,  it  seems  to  have  been  the  Scripture 
of  the  Western  Church  from  the  earliest  times. 

It  does  seem  strange  that  the  passage  in  question  should  286 
not  have  been  more  frequently  introduced  by  the  fathers.  Its 
being  omitted  in  a  continued  commentary  is  the  greatest  ob 
jection  to  it.  Indeed,  Chrysostom  comments  in  homilies,  and 
he  seems  to  go  no  farther  than  the  Epistle  to  Hebrews ;  but 
Bede's  is  a  direct  and  pointed  omission.  In  such  a  case  we 
may  suppose,  that,  on  the  whole,  those  MSS.  were  preferred 
which  omitted  the  verse.  Bede  must  rank  with  Bentley ; 
though  Mr.  Travis  does  not  allow  this :  he  thinks  Bede  would 
have  mentioned  the  omission,  if  there  had  been  one.  Or  he 
might  rank  with  Luther,  who  certainly  must  have  known 
many  arguments  on  both  sides,  before  controversy  began,  by 
being  conversant  in  the  works  of  the  ancients. 

Of  fathers  not  commentators  it  may  be  said,  that  their 
works  are  only  fragments,  generally  speaking ;  (the  losses 
which  we  have  had  of  the  works  of  Origen  are  particularly  to 
be  lamented  ;)  and  that  there  might  be  good  reasons  for  not 
quoting  our  passage,  which  we  cannot  conceive :  that  the  read 
ings  of  it  might  be  unsettled,  and  perplexed  ;  and  being  so, 
that  the  sense  of  it  might  seem  difficult,  when  put  in  its  place  : 
that,  before  controversy  arose,  it  is  not  a  likely  passage  to  be 
often  quoted  ;  and  that,  after  controversy  arose,  that  contro 
versy  was  not  so  much  about  the  Trinity  as  is  commonly 
said.  The  Arian  controversy  was  more  about  the  Divinity  of 
the  Son  of  God,  of  which  this  text  could  not  be  any  favourite 
proof.  Tertullian  did  dispute  with  Unitarians,  as  such;  and 
he  seems  to  me  to  have  interwoven  the  text  in  his  writing  ac 
cording  to  the  manner  of  the  early  fathers1;  though  others 

1  See  accounts  of  what  Scriptures  the  early  fathers  owned,  in  Lardner's  Credi 
bility. 


IV.  i.  Append.] 


1  JOHN  v.  7. 


537 


II.  seem  in  the  same  case2  to  have  passed  it  by,  as  if  it  was  not  so 
28?  much  noticed  formerly  as  now.  This  text  is  undoubtedly  a 
very  good  one  to  justify  our  speaking  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  together;  and  the  union  mentioned  implies  great  dig 
nity  of  character  in  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit;  but  yet  the 
Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  (which  is  included  in 
our  Trinity)  appears  more  satisfactorily  from  other  parts  of 
Scripture,  where  their  attributes  are  described  separately.  In 
deed,  I  should  doubt  whether  the  belief  of  it  ever  would  have 
arisen  from  this  passage,  especially  as  many  learned  comment 
ators3  look  upon  the  union  as  meaning  only  what  we  call 
unanimity. 

But,  supposing  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ever  so  clearly 
set  forth  in  this  text,  yet  it  might  not  have  been  frequently 
quoted,  if  it  be  true,  that  there  was  a  reserve  in  the  leaders  of 
,  Christianity  about  publishing  mysteries.  Christ  himself4  and 
St.  Paul5  certainly  offered  doctrines  gradually  ;  and  I  am 
clear,  that,  if  I  was  a  missionary,  or  was  to  be  employed  in 
making  converts,  I  should  be  a  good  while  before  I  insisted 
on  this  verse:  though  I  should  not  wish  to6  expunge  it,  as  there 
are  so  many  other  texts  which  join  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost. 

And,  after  all,  we  have  no  fathers,  Greek  or  Latin,  before 
or  after  the  time  when  it  confessedly  appeared,  that  make  the 
least  objection  to  this  text,  or  to  its  authenticity  ;  so  that  the 
silence  of  its  friends  is  to  be  set  against  the  silence  of  its  ene 
mies.  That  the  Arians  should  not  deny  its  authenticity,  is  a 
phenomenon,  which  should  be  accounted  for ;  and,  if  it  is  said 
288  (what  is  but  too  true)  that  many  writings  of  reputed  heretics 
have  been  destroyed  through  mistaken  prudence,  yet  we  might 
answer,  that  great  numbers  of  arguments  of  heretics  are  pre 
served  in  the  writings  of  those  who7  answer  them  ;  and  that, 
particularly,  it  is  improbable,  that  the  bishops  should  have 
given  in  so  lono;  a  confession  of  faith  at  the  Council  of  Car- 

O  O 

thage8,  and  should  have  made  use  of  the  text  in  question, 
without  giving  any  intimation  that  the  Arians  disallowed  it. 
Of  all  times  for  its  being  first  alleged,  that  is  the  most  im 
probable  which  Mr.  Gibbon  fixes  upon. 


2  See  Mill  on  the  place. 

3  Be/a  is  one,  I  think.    Bp.  Horsley  is 
of  this  opinion. 

4  John  xvi.  12.  5  1  Cor.  iii.  2. 


6  See  Bengelius  on  this  passage. 

7  Aug.   contra  Faustum,  &c.    Origen 
contra  Celsum. 

8  See  Travis's  Appendix,  No.  xiv. 


538 


ARTICLES  OF   RELIGION.      [IV.  i.  Append. 


The  argument  arising  from  the  connection  of  the  contested  II. 
verse  is  urged  on  both  sides.  Those,  who  reject  it,  say  that 
the  insertion  of  it1  hurts  the  sense  of  the  whole  passage;  those 
who  are  for  adopting  it  say,  that  the  sense  is  quite  maimed  and 
imperfect  without  it.  Bengelius,  as  I  remember,  grounds  his 
admission  of  it  chiefly  on  its  suitableness  to  its  place.  To  me 
the  whole  passage  seems  so  difficult,  as  to  admit  of  different 
interpretations;  yet  that  given  in  the  paraphrase2  of  Erasmus 
pleases  me  most.  Every  one,  in  such  disputes  as  these,  tells 
his  own  judgment  simply  as  a  fact,  claiming  liberty  at  any 
time  to  retract  it. 

In  forming  this  or  any  other  judgment  I  may  be  preju 
diced.  Those  who  have  got  warmed  in  the  controversy  shew  a 
considerable  bias,  I  think,  one  way  or  the  other  ;  a  thing  which 
ought  to  be  attended  to  :  yet  I  would,  if  possible,  acquit  them 
all  of  intentional  deceit.  All  have  faults.  Mill  indeed  is  dis 
passionate  ;  Bengelius  seems  warmly  candid ;  even  Sir  Isaac  289 
Newton,  in  some  passages,  seems  approaching  to  a  kind  of 
perihelion.  Mr.  Gibbon  is  disdainful;  Voltaire  is  pert  and 
flippant ;  but  I  am  very  desirous,  if  possible,  to  acquit  them 
all  of  deliberate  fraud.  To  be  sure,  when  a  man,  fixed  in  an 
opinion,  sees  a  passage  that  suits  him,  he  seizes  on  it  as  his 
prey,  turns  to  his  own  writing,  and  thinks  not  of  going  any 
deeper.  If,  in  such  a  case,  going  a  page  or  a  sentence  farther 
would  have  shewn  him  that  he  is  totally  wrong,  he  does  incur 
some  suspicion  of  having  concealed  what  perhaps  he  never 
knew  ;  but,  as  this  happens  to  all  sides,  and  as  there  is  no  end 
of  critical  researches,  let  us  take  for  granted  that  degree  of 
innocence  which  will  ensure  liberal  treatment  and  liberal  lan 
guage.  Only  let  every  one  beware  of  his  own  hypothesis — of 
his  own  manner  of  accounting  for  the  text  being  in  or  out. 
An  hypothesis  is  a  favourite  child — must  not  be  blamed  though 
ever  so  blameable. 

Thus  self-cautioned,  I  will  make  only  general  suppositions. 
Either  this  contested  verse  must  be  genuine  or  spurious:  if 
genuine,  it  must  have  been  expunged  unfairly ;  if  spurious,  it 
must  have  been  admitted  unfairly.  Which  is  easier  to  conceive? 
Could  it  be  expunged  ?  Many  passages,  we  find,  have  been, 


1  Michaelis,     Introd. 
quarto,  sect.  151. 


Lect.    p.    382, 


2  Travis,  p.  33fi.    P.  S.  Sir  Isaac  New 
ton's  seems  good  :  and    Clarke's  Scrip. 


Doctr.  Trin.  Part  I.  chap.  iv.  would  not 
have  been  objected  to,  if  it  had  occurred 
first. 


IV.  i.  Append.] 


1  JOHN  v.  7. 


539 


II.  though  we  cannot  now  tell  why  :  so  might  this.  The  ancients 
made  very  free  with  Scripture:  even  whole  books  have  been  reject 
ed,  when  they  stood  in  the  way  of  settled  notions.  While  a  num 
ber  of  writings  of  doubtful  authority  were  claiming  attention, 
the  judgment  of  private  individuals  had  more  scope  than  now3. 
Whoever  first  omitted  any  passage  in  any  copy,  it  would  be 

20,0  omitted  by  all  transcribers  from  that  copy,  and  from  theirs. 
Some  seem  strongly  persuaded  that  governors  of  a  Church,  or 
leading  men  amongst  Christians,  might  order  some  things  to  be 
omitted  in  some  copies.  When  those  who  transcribe  do  not 
understand  what  they  write,  if  two  things  are  like,  (as  the  7th 
and  8th  verses  are,)  one  of  them  is  perhaps  omitted4.  Though, 
therefore,  there  are  other  passages  to  the  same  effect  with  this 
under  consideration,  it  might  be  genuine,  and  yet  get  expunged. 
Now  suppose  it  spurious ;  then  it  must  have  got  ad 
mitted  unfairly.  Is  this  equally  easy?  why  should  it  be  forged? 
Voltaire  says,  a  man  would  be  mad  to  forge  it ;  but  he  did  not 
understand  the  subject.  We  may  say,  that  no  one  would 
think  of  forging  such  a  passage  till  it  was  wanted  in  Contro 
versy  ;  but  then  enemies  would  be  upon  the  watch ;  and  they, 
by  objecting,  could  stop  the  forgery.  Mr.  Gibbon  says6,  this 
forgery  was  committed  about  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Car 
thage  ;  but  durst  the  African  bishops  forge  it  at  that  time  ? 
would  not  the  Arians,  who  were  then  in  power,  have  been  cla 
morous  ?  Of  such  a  forgery,  at  such  a  time,  I  see  no  degree  of 
probability. 

If  this  text  might  be  more  easily  expunged  unfairly  than 
admitted  unfairly,  it  is  more  easy  to  conceive  it  genuine  than 
spurious. 

Perhaps  this  question  may  be  determined  satisfactorily  here 
after  :  new  MSS.  may  be  found — in  the  East,  where  Jerom  was; 
in  Spain,  where  Cardinal  Ximenes  had  MSS;  or  in  other  places. 

291  At  present,  I  should  think  Mr.  Travis^s  book  might  be  recom 
mended  to  the  perusal  of  those  who  wished  to  learn  something 
of  the  critical  part  of  theology,  and  yet  did  not  relish  a  book  if 
it  had  not  animation  and  acuteness.  Till  farther  satisfaction  be 


3  Yet  Luther  is  said  to  have  rejected 
the  Epistle  of  James  ;  and  Michaelis  the 
Epistle  of  Jude :  well  might  they  reject  a 
single  verse. 

4  "  There  are  three  that  bear  record," 
the  scribe  writes;  looks  up  again,  takes 


the  second  for  the  first— goes  on,   "in 
earth." 

5  Some  suppose  it  to  have  been  written 
marginally  first,  as  a  gloss  upon  the  8th 
verse,  and  afterwards  to  have  been  taken 
into  the  text,  as  before  mentioned. 

6  Vol.  in.  p.  ft  4-1,  quarto. 


540  ARTICLES     OF    RELIGION.      .  [IV.  ti.  1. 

obtained,  may  all  controversialists  be  careful  in  their  researches,  II. 
humble  in  their  pretensions,   candid  in  their  judgments,  and 
benevolent  in  their  expressions1. 


ARTICLE    II.  292 

OF     THE     WORD,    OR     SON     OF     GOD,     WHICH     WAS     MADE    VERY 

MAN. 

THE  Son,  which  is  the  Word  of  the  Father,  begotten  from 
everlasting  of  the  Father,  the  very  and  eternal  God,  and  of  one 
substance  with  the  Father,  took  maifs  nature  in  the  womb  of 
the  blessed  Virgin,  of  her  substance :  so  that  two  whole  and 
perfect  Natures,  that  is  to  say,  the  Godhead  and  Manhood, 
were  joined  together  in  one  Person,  never  to  be  divided,  whereof 
is  one  Christ,  very  God,  and  very  Man  ;  who  truly  suffered, 
was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us, 
and  to  be  a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  guilt,  but  also  for 
actual  sins  of  men. 


1.  This  Article,  if  we  were  to  attempt  to  treat  it  fully, 
would  carry  us  too  far;  considering  that  we  are  not  to  fix  our 
attention  upon  any  one  Article,  so  as  to  neglect  the  rest.  The 
volumes  which  have  been  written,  upon  the  doctrine  contained 
in  this  second,  are  innumerable.  Our  business  must  therefore 
be  to  select  such  considerations  as  seem  most  essential,  and 
belong  most  immediately  to  us.  In  order  to  do  this,  we  may 
observe, 

1.  That  what  has  been  said  under  the  preceding  Article 
need  not  be  repeated  under  this ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 

1  1794,  March  24.    This  day,  in  my   ,    tannicus,  &c.  &c.  were  mentioned ;  and  I 


Lecture,  I  read  to  my  auditors  this  Ap 
pendix  on  1  John  v.  7,  first  written  in 
1789;  and  observed,  that,  supposing  the 
evidence  on  which  the  remarks  in  it  were 
built,  as  good  as  it  might  appear  to  be  to 
any  reasonable  man,  there  was  little  in 
them  to  be  ashamed  of.  Then  I  men- 


read  part  of  Sir  I.  Newton's  stricture  on 
Beza ;  and  some  passages  from  Marsh's 
Michaelis.  I  said,  that,  as  Mr.  Travis 
was  about  to  publish,  it  would  be  indecent 
and  unfair  to  come  to  any  decision  at  pre 
sent.  I  recommended  the  eire^eiv  on  some 
occasions,  and  observed  that  many  errors 


tioned  in  what  points  Mr.  Parson's  Let-  i  had  arisen  from  impatience  under  sus- 
ters  called  that  evidence  into  question  :  ;  pense.  (See  Book  II.  chap.  ii.  sect.  1.) 
Stephens's  MSS.,  Erasmus's  Codex  Bri-  ' 


IV.  ii.    1.]  THE    SON    OF    GOD. 


541 


II.  nity  is  so  intimately  connected  with  our  present  doctrine,  that 
293  many  things  have  been  said  already  which  might  have  been  now 
said  with  at  least  equal  propriety. 

2.  That  every  thing  relating  to  the  last  clause  of  this  Ar 
ticle,  which  affirms  that  Christ  was  a  victim  both  for  original 
and  actual  sin,  may  properly  be  omitted  till  we  have  gone 
through  the  ninth  Article;  especially  as  it  will  have  a  place 
under  the  eleventh. 

8.  That  we  may  leave  the  minuter  parts  of  controversy  to 
those  who  make  the  doctrine  of  this  Article  their  sole  object; 
and  content  ourselves  with  more  general  views  of  the  matters  on 
which  disputes  are  apt  to  turn. 

Our  plan  may  nevertheless  be  the  same  as  in  the  preceding 
Article.  First,  to  take  an  historical  view  of  our  subject.  Se 
condly,  to  give  an  explanation  (which  will  be  chiefly  historical) 
of  the  expressions  of  the  Article.  Thirdly,  to  prove  the  truth 
of  the  propositions  contained  in  it.  And,  lastly,  to  make  an 
application  of  the  whole  to  the  present  situation  of  things. 

First  then,  we  are  to  take  an  historical  view  of  the  doctrine 
contained  in  the  second  Article  of  our  Church  :  first,  of  the  or 
thodox  doctrine ;  afterwards,  of  the  deviations  from  it. 

The  Jews  seem  to  have  had  some  notion  of  a  Son  of  God 
before  the  Christian  era,  and  to  have  applied  the  term  Aoyos  to 
him  ;  as  also  to  have,  in  some  way,  connected  their  ideas  of 
their  expected  Messiah  with  the  same  personage.  It  is  scarcely 
to  be  expected  that  their  notions  should  be  found  definite  and 
distinct;  as  they  had  not  distinct  information,  but  only  obscure 
intimations.  If  they  only  afford  a  sufficient  apology  for  St. 
294  John's  mentioning  the  Word  so2  seldom  as  he  does,  that  will,  I 
presume,  be  deemed  sufficient; — and  for  ru's  giving  a  title  to  so 
sublime  a  character,  without  any  preparation  or  explanation. 
If  he  addressed  himself  to  those  to  whom  his  term  was  familiar, 
he  had  no  need  to  explain  it. 

Whence  we  collect  what  were  the  notions  of  the  Jews,  has 
been  already 3  shewn. 

That  what  I  have  affirmed  is  true,  must  appear  from  con 
sulting  a  number  of  passages  in  the  most  ancient  Jewish  wri 
tings.  I  will  therefore  content  myself  with  referring  to  those 


2  Four  times,  or  however  in  only  four 
different  verses.  John  i.  1 ;  John  i.  14  ; 
1  John  v.  7;  Rev.  xix.  13.  Abp.  Tillot- 
son  talks  of  St.  John's  frequent  mention 


of  the  Word  :  he  must  mean  his  repetition 
in  John  i.  1.  surely  ? 

3  Art.  i.  sect.  2.    Justin  Martyr's  Dia 
logue  with  Trypho  might  be  added. 


542  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  1. 

writers1  who  have  collected  such  passages;   only   I   will  read  II. 
some  of  them  to  those  who  may  not  happen  to  have  the  books 
in  which  they  are  contained. 

There  are  some  passages,  especially  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  mention  the  Word  of  God,  so  as  to  give  me  no  idea  of 
that  Word's  being  a  Person ;  and  the  same  of  the  Breath  or 
Spirit 2  of  God.  Lardner  seems  to  speak3  of  these  as  if  there 
were  no  others ;  but  there  are  some  passages  of  the  ancient 
Jews,  which  I  can  understand  only  as  making  the  Word  a 
Person.  These  may  be  seen  in  Allix,  before  referred  to. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  the  Jews,  in  our  Saviour's  time, 
when  they  came  to  fact  and  practice,  seem  to  have  not  been 
much  influenced,  at  one  time,  by  these  habitual  notions  received 
by  tradition.  They  seem  to  have  given  themselves  up  to  the  295 
delusive  hopes  of  being  rescued  from  their  state  of  dependence 
by  a  temporal  prince ;  but  that  only  proves  that  their  notions 
of  Logos,  and  Son  of  God,  as  connected  with  Messiah,  were 
not  definite  and  distinct,  (as  was  just  now  allowed,)  but  to  be 
confirmed  by  facts,  like  prophecies ;  and  therefore  were  such  as 
might  be  set  aside,  at  times,  by  the  force  of  passion.  See  Dr. 
George  Campbell's  Essay  on  Kvpio?,  p.  31 6;  and  Waterland's 
Answer  to  Dr.  Whitby's  Reply,  p.  51. 

But  we  are  told 4  that  Jews  and  Christians  have  both  bor 
rowed  notions  of  Aoyos  from  Plato.  Our  answer  to  this  has 
been  already  given,  under  the  preceding  Article. 

The  opinions  of  Christians,  with  regard  to  the  Word,  seem 
to  correspond  to  their  several  opinions  of  the  Person  and  dig 
nity  of  Christ.  Even  Dr.  Priestley 5  says,  "  the  Word,  or 
Christ;"  as  if  he  did  not  disown,  that  the  Word  might  mean 
Christ,  as  Socinus 6  himself  supposed ;  yet  he  rather  follows  the 
more  modern  Socinian  notion,  that  the  Word  means  only  "  the 
power  or  energy  of  God."  As  the  word  Aoyos  may  mean  either 
inward  reason,  or  audible  speech,  two  epithets  have  been 
added  to  it,  in  order  to  distinguish  these  senses:  Xoyos  cvSia- 


1  Allix  on  Unitarians,  beginning,  pp. 
2,  102 ;  also  chap.  xii.  p.  181 ;  chap.  xvi. 
and  xvii.  p.  253,  and  265.    Tillotson, 
vol.  I.  fol.  p.  410.    Pearson  on  the  Creed, 
p.  117,  fol.  or  233,  quarto.    Grotius  de 
Ver.  5.  21.     Parkhurst's  Gr.  Lex.  under 
Aoyos. 

2  Psalm  xxxiii.   6.     Yet  those,   who 
were  upon  the  watch    for  intimations, 
might  consider,    "  Word"   as  meaning 


the  Son  of  God,  and  "  Breath1"  as  mean 
ing  his  Holy  Spirit. 


3  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  216. 

4  Gibbon's  Hist.   vol.    n.  quarto,  p. 
327,  &c. 


5  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  30. 

6  "Verbum  vel  Filium,"  Cat.  Racov. 
p.  61 ;   and   see  Allix,  p.  2.    See  also 
Lardner's  Works,   Index,   Logos ;    and 
vol.  in.  p.  76 ;  vol  vi.  p.  215,  bottom. 


IV.  ii.  2.] 


THE    SON    OF    GOD. 


543 


II.  06T09,  or  inward  reason,  has  been  opposed7 

or  speech  pronounced  or  set  forth ;  but  using  \oyos  in  either 
of  these  senses  seems  to  interfere  with  the  Personality  of  the 
Word  :  on  which  account,  I  suppose,  the  Council  of  Sirmium 
296'  condemned  boths: — u  Si  quis  insitum  vel  prolativum,  verbum 
Dei,  Filium  dicat ;  anathema  sit." 

The  orthodox  hold  the  Aoyos  and  the  Son  of  God  to  be  the 
same ;  yet  this  does  not  occur  in  our  creeds. 

Some  writers,  as  Epiphanius  and  Philaster,  say,  there  was 
a  sect  called  Alogians,  from  their  rejecting  the  Logos,  and  those 
parts  of  Scripture  where  he  is  mentioned.  Lardner  thinks 
(Her.  end)  there  is  not  sufficient  testimony  of  the  existence  of 
such  a  sect.  It  does  not  in  itself  seem  unlikely;  and  the  evidence 
is  not  bad. 

Indeed,  our  proper  business  is  now  with  the  orthodox  doc 
trine  ;  though,  that  we  might  not  need  to  return  to  the  history 
of  the  Atryos,  I  have  mentioned  some  notions  of  those  who  were 
not  orthodox. 

2.  What  was  before  said  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
may  be  said  of  that  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  which  makes  a 
part  of  it ;  that  it  seems,  in  some  sort,  to  have  existed  at  all 
times,  though  not  to  have  been  made  up  into  a  speculative,  sys 
tematic  form,  till  it  was  discussed  in  controversy9.  As,  in  dif 
ferent  parts  of  Scripture,  written  on  different  occasions,  and  in 
different  circumstances,  some  expressions  seem  to  favour  one 
doctrine,  some  another,  so  it  is  in  the  writings  of  the  early  fa 
thers  10.  And,  whilst  this  was  the  case,  it  may  either  be  said 
that  the  doctrine  existed,  or  that  it  did  not  exist ;  though  more 
properly  perhaps,  that  is,  more  according  to  the  customary  use 
of  words,  it  might  be  said  not  to  exist,  or  at  least  not  to  have 
come  to  maturity.  But  then  the  same  may  be  said  of  any  doc- 
297  trine  opposed  to  that  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  When  one 
could  be  said  to  exist,  in  any  sense,  its  opposite  might  be  said 
to  exist  in  the  same  sense.  However,  I  look  upon  the  doctrine 
of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  to  have  come  to  maturity  before  that 
of  the  Trinity,  as  seems  to  appear  from  the  Nicene  Creed; 
which  dwells  most  particularly  on  the  Son  of  God. 

We  may  reason  thus.  The  establishment  of  a  doctrine 
must  depend,  not  only  on  its  being  discussed  in  controversy, 


7  These  two  sorts  of  Adyos  are  found 
in  the  Trinities,  Art.  i.  sect.  1. 

8  Hilary's  Works,  p.  1175,  8th  Ana- 


thema.  A.D.  357-  9  Art.  i.  sect.  4. 

10  Bingham  has  collected  the  orthodox 
passages,  13.  2.  1,  &c. 


544  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  3. 

but  on  the  extent  of  that  controversy.  Though  we  suppose  II. 
Tertullian  and  Praxeas  to  have  discussed  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  ever  so  accurately,  yet,  if  the  dispute  was  known  to  but 
few  Christians,  and  was  not  noticed  by  the  main  body  of  the 
Church,  it  might  not  produce  a  doctrine.,  in  the  common  sense 
of  the  word.  Now,  the  extent  of  the  controversy  concerning 
the  Son  of  God  was  very  great;  so  that  whatever  opinion  was 
fixed  by  that  might  properly  be  called  a  doctrine — an  establish 
ed  doctrine  of  the  main  body  of  Christians ;  who  would,  of 
course,  call  themselves  the  Catholic  Church^. 

If  we  wished  to  see  particularly  the  nature  of  the  progress 
which  our  doctrine  made,  we  need  only  put  ourselves  in  the 
place  of  the  early  Christians,  and  think  what  they  might 
naturally  do.  They  might  at  first  use  warm  and  lofty  expres 
sions  of  Scripture;  addressing  themselves  to  the  Father  or  the 
Son,  as  the  occasion  dictated.  Then  they  might  vary  or  para 
phrase  these  expressions  a  little,  so  as  to  make  them  suit  their 
own  circumstances,  without  intending  to  introduce  any  new 
meaning:  when  variations  were  used,  different  people  would  use 
different  variations  or  phrases,  according  to  their  views  and  dis-  298 
positions.  This  would  produce  mutual  remarks,  and  remarks 
would  produce  controversy.  What  began  in  sentiment  would 
end  in  speculation;  and  so  religion  would  be  transferred  from 
the  heart  to  the  head. 

3.  But  I  will  not  dwell  longer  on  the  history  of  the 
orthodox  doctrine.  I  will  now  endeavour  to  look  so  far  into 
the  history  of  other  opinions,  or  fancies,  as  may  suffice  to  give 
us  the  same  views  which  the  compilers  of  our  Article  had,  while 
their  attention  was  confined  to  the  business  of  forming  it. 

It  seems  probable  to  me  that  all  the  notions,  ancient  and 
modern,  respecting  the  Son  of  God,  have  arisen  from  a  desire 
and  hope  of  solving  the  difficulties  naturally  arising  from  the 
scriptural  accounts  of  his  Person  and  character2.  These  diffi 
culties  are  no  doubt  very  great ;  nay,  the  only  way  to  conquer 
them  is  to  allow  them  to  be  insuperable ;  yet,  as  allowing  that 
might  be  the  effect  of  carelessness  and  indolence,  attempts  to 
clear  them  up  cannot  be  universally  blameable. 


1  Bp.  Burnet  talks  of  the  Trinity  being 
universally  received,  &c.    On  the  Arti 
cles,   p.  48,  octavo,  near  close  of  first 
Article.    This  is  mentioned  Art.  i.  sect.  4. 

2  Could  it  be  said,  that  there  is  no  one 
of  the    solutions  of  heretics   which   we 


should  not  be  desirous  to  adopt,  while 
we  only  considered  the  arguments  for  it, 
and  for  it  alone  ?  before  we  came  to  see 
what  difficulties  arose  out  of  it,  from  its 
inconsistency  with  some  parts  of  Scrip 
ture  ? 


IV.  ii.  4.]  THE   SON  OF   GOD.  545 

II.  It  is  not  easy  to  determine  what  method  to  pursue  in  reduc 
ing  to  order  accounts  so  heterogeneous,  so  distant  in  time  and 
situation,  as  those  relating  to  Christ ;  but  it  seems  as  if  we  had 
best  first  mention  what  are  the  points  on  which  difference  can 
arise,  and  what  are  the  sects  and  persons  who  have  held  any 
opinions  with  regard  to  those  points. 

The  points  on  which  men  have  differed,  when  they  thought 
on  the  subject  of  the  nature  and  character  of  Christ,  have  been 

299  these.      1.    His   consubstantiality    with   the  Father.      2.   His 
pre-existence 3,  before  his  nativity.     3.  The  manner  of  his  in 
carnation  ;  or  the  manner  in  which  the  Word  was  made  flesh. 
4.   What  is  called  the  Hypostatic  Union,  or  the  conjunction  of 
the  Divine  and  human  natures4,  (<^J<7ei?)  in  one  Person  (vTroa- 
Tacrt?)  or  agent,  called  Christ — evtoais  KctO'  vTroaTcunv*. 

The  sects,  or  persons,  who  have  differed  on  these  different 
points,  I  should  reckon  as  eleven ;  dividing  all  the  early 
Christian  heresies  into  two  classes,  and  reckoning  them  only  as 
two.  We  should  notice  then,  1.  The  Oriental.  2.  The  Jew 
ish  heretics  of  the  first  two  or  three  centuries.  3.  The  Arians. 
4.  The  followers  of  Photinus.  5.  Nestorians.  6.  Eutychians. 
7.  The  Monothelites.  8.  The  Adoptionarii.  9.  The  Socinians. 
10.  The  Anabaptists.  And  lastly,  some  particular  persons,  who 
may  not  have  given  a  name  to  a  sect.  Though  these  may  seem 
numerous,  there  is  no  doubt  but  the  compilers  of  our  Articles 
had  them6  all  in  view;  indeed,  their  views  were  much  more 

300  extensive  than  ours  will  be,  merely  for  having  considered  these. 

4.  We  are  to  consider,  or  recollect,  what  the  Oriental 
early  heretics  held  concerning  our  present  subject — concerning 
Christ.  Here  I  would  wish  to  have  it  seen,  that  men  do  not  in 
general  pay  respect  enough  to  their  adversaries.  Instead  of 


3  This  does  not  mean  pre-existence  as 
mere  man— IL  thing  which  the  Jews  were 
inclined  to  believe.     See  Macknight  on 
John  ix.  2. 

4  Whoever    denies    the   second  point 
must  deny  the  first;  whoever  grants  the 
first  must  grant  the  second. 

6  'YTro'crrao-is-  is  used  for  a  Divine 
Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  See 
Nicholls,  fol.  on  the  1st  Art.  p.  27.  Yet 
what  is  here  said  must,  I  think,  be  right 
in  doctrine :  it  must  be  the  ei/wo-is  of  two 
natures  in  und  inroo-Tao-ei,  though  not  of 
the  Trinity.  I  see,  in  Nicholls,  Nestorius 
was  blamed  for  holding  two  v7ro<rra'<Teis 


or  two  Persons — two  Christs  :  p.  40.  col.  2. 
vTToo-Tacris  in  Suicer,  signifies  this  same 
thing  called  Person  (as  in  Heb.  i.  3;) 
and,  in  one  quotation,  it  is  said  that  one 
person  of  the  Trinity  took  man's  nature, 
united  it  with  the  Divine  Nature  ( without 
confusion),  and  yet  still  was  but  owe  Per 
son.  Under  ei/uxri?,  there  are  mentioned 
several  unions  :  evuxrts  KCLTO,  <f)ixriu,  evtotris 
KCLT'  ouo-iai/:  and  the  hypostatic  union  is 
called  ei/wo-is  »ca0'  vTrocrTacriv. 

6  See  title  to  Doctrina,  &c.  Ecclesw 
Anglicana,  and  the  title  of  the  Articles 
in  that  Collection;  or  sect.  4.  of  the 
Introd.  to  this  Book  iv. 


VOL.  I.  35 


546  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  4. 

declaiming  against  those  who  oppose  us,  we  should  endeavour  to  II. 
find  out  what  misled  them,  supposing  their  intention  good :   we 
should  put  ourselves  in  their  place,  and  endeavour  to  see  with 
their  eyes. 

This  is  difficult  with  regard  to  Eastern  Christians,  we  have 
such  different  habits  and  prejudices  from  theirs;  and  I  suppose 
that  even  travel  would  not  put  us  in  their  place,  because  most 
of  their  notions  have  taken  their  rise  in  remote  antiquity.  All 
that  we  can  now  do  is  only  to  refer  to  the  account  of  early 
heretics  given  in  the  Appendix  to  our  first  Book,  and  select 
what  is  to  our  present  purpose.  The  Oriental  sects  were  strong 
ly  tinctured  with  notions  of  a  number  of  teons.  Some  of  them, 
from  being  accustomed  to  the  worshipping  of  the  sun,  let  their 
fancies  run  to  the  heavenly  luminaries:  most  of  them,  if  not  all, 
had  some  abhorrence  of  matter.  These  notions  subsisted,  in 
some  degree,  before  the  coming  of  Christ ;  and  those,  who  were 
unwilling  to  relinquish  them,  endeavoured  to  incorporate  them 
with  Christianity.  The  consequence  was,  that  they  had  doc 
trines,  which  seem  to  us  strange,  concerning  the  creation  of  the 
world,  the  nature  of  Christ's  Body,  and  of  his  residence  after 
his  ascension.  They  held  that  the  material  world  was  framed 
by  aeons,  or  spirits,  amongst  whom  they  reckoned  Logos,  Mo- 
nogenes,  Ocus,  and  many1  others;  or  that  some  inferior  artificer,  301 
or  Demiurgus  in  particular,  was  employed  in  that  imperfect 
work  :  not  any  being  so  perfect  as  Christ.  They  maintained 
that  Christ  had  not  a  real  body,  but  only  an  apparent  one ;  and 
they  were,  on  that  account,  called  Docetce,  or  Phantasiastce. 
This  was  denying  our  Saviour's  humanity ;  and  they  were 
obliged,  in  order  to  be  consistent,  to  carry  on  their  notions,  by 
saying,  that  the  accounts  of  the  crucifixion,  See.  were  allegori 
cal,  or  mystical.  This  was  of  course  to  deny  a  proper  nativity. 
Lastly,  endeavouring  to  connect  their  notions  of  Christ  with 
their  notions  of  the  luminaries,  some  of  them  held,  that  Christ 
was  taken  from  the  sun2,  or  stars,  and  was  to  return  to  them ; 
in  which  case,  Christ  was  only  supposed  to  pass  through  the 
womb  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  as  through  a  tube.  This  was  an 
old  notion.  See  Lord  King  on  the  Creed,  pp.  11 6,  157.  See 
Div.  Leg.  Index,  "Soul."  Manx  made  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity  to  reside  in  the  sun,  and  made  him  correspond  to  the 
Persian  Mithras.  Some  conceived  Christ  to  come  not  from 

1  Lord  King  mentions  three  principles — from  Origen.     King  on  the  (/reed,  p.  93. 

2  Valentinus,  Lard.  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  444. 


IV.  ii.  5,  6.]  THE   SON  OF  GOD.  547 

II.  heaven,  but  from  the  four  elements ;  and  to  be  resolved*  into 
them  again.  Valentinus  is  also  said  to  have  supposed  Christ, 
as  the  Son  of  God,  to  be  cut  off,  as  it  were,  or  separated4  from 
the  Father;  so  that  a  part  of  the  Father  was  (or  must  be)  taken 
away. 

5.  As  the  Oriental  early  heretics  denied  the  humanity  of 
.302  Christ,  the  Jewish  denied  his  divinity5.  But  as  what  was  said6 
in  describing  these  related  wholly  to  our  present  subject,  we  can 
not  select  from  it,  and  therefore  must  refer  to  it.  Possibly,  the 
Ebionites  might  think  of  nothing,  with  regard  to  the  Messiah, 
but  that  he  was  to  be  a  temporal  prince,  and  a  mere  man.  The 
Nazarenes  might  be  more  impressed  with  the  notions  of  the 
Logos,  and  the  Son  of  God  (John  i.  49)  being  the  same  with 
the  "  King  of  Israel,""  or  Messiah. 

We  might  mention,  as  before,  some  Christians,  who  seem  to 
have  mixed  Oriental  and  Judaical  notions.  Cerinthus  and  Car- 
pocrates  may  perhaps  be  mentioned  in  this  class.  It  was  not 
uncommon,  amongst  the  early  heretics,  to  make  a  difference 
between  Jesus  and  Christ :  and  some  made  two  Christs  even  on 
Jewish  principles,  one  suffering,  another  triumphant.  (Pearson 
on  the  Creed,  p.  371,  1st  edit.)  And  we  may,  lastly,  repeat  a 
remark  on  the  difference  between  those  who  held  two  principles, 
and  those  who  held  one;  that  the  former  used  to  deny  the  hu 
manity  of  Christ,  and  the  latter  his  Divinity. 

We  have  now  finished  our  references  to  the  Appendix  of  tfoe 
first  book  ;  it  relating  only  to  the  early  heretics. 

6.  We  pass  on  to  the  Arians.  Arius  seems  to  have  been 
an  African :  he  is  placed  in  316.  It  is  well  known  that  he  was 
a  presbyter  at  Alexandria ;  a  man  of  parts,  and  of  commanding 
appearance,  though  affable ;  particularly  ready  at  dispute.  The 
name  of  his  bishop,  that  is,  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  in  his  time, 
was  Alexander.  By  degrees,  Arius  got  into  a  dispute  with  this 
Alexander,  concerning  the  nature  and  dignity  of  the  Son  of 
God  ;  which  spread,  till  the  whole  Christian  world  was  involved 

303  in  it.     Constantine  ordered  the   Council  of  Nice,  in   order  to 


3  Lord  King  on  the  Creed,  p.  2/7- 

4  See  Ibid,  bottom  of  p.  133. 

5  Eusebius,  Eccles.  Hist.  3.  27,  calls 
Ebionites  and   Nazarenes    two   sorts  of 
Ebionites.     See  Lardner's  Works,  vol. 
vn.  p.  20.     The  former  thought  Christ 


Christ  to  be  born  supernaturally,  but  did 
not  allow  his  pre-existence.  Lardner  says, 
that  there  were  few  of  the  former  sort,  and 
that  their  notion  is  not  maintained  in  any 
Christian  writinti. 
6  Appendix  to  Book  I.  sect.  21.  See 


merely  human,  though  they  had  an  high   i    also  Lardner's  Work*,  vol.  vn.  p.  20. 
opinion  of  him  as  a  man  :  the  latter  held 

35 2 


548  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  6. 

settle  it ;  but  without  effect.  He  has  been  reckoned  too  partial  II. 
on  the  orthodox  side,  though  his  Epistle  before  mentioned  shews 
some  moderation.  Other  emperors  favoured  the  Arians,  but 
moderation  was  but  little  practised  in  those  days.  We  have 
already1  taken  a  slight  view  of  Arianism  from  the  Council  of 
Nice  down  to  the  present  time.  We  may  just  add  the  name  of 
Dr.  Price;  as  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters  to  him  give  that  descrip 
tion  of  Arianism  which  is  most  recent. 

As  to  the  doctrines  of  Arius,  I  do  not  see  that  we  can  learn 
them  better  than  from  two  Epistles  of  his  own,  written  with 
great  care,  the  one  to  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Nicomedia,  who  was 
of  his  own  way  of  thinking,  complaining  of  persecution,  and 
mentioning  the  particular  opinions  on  account  of  which  he  suf 
fered  ;  the  other  to  his  own  diocesan,  Alexander,  apologizing 
for  himself  and  his  doctrines,  which  had  probably  been  rmisre- 
presented2.  This  latter  is  signed  by  fourteen  others,  as  well  as 
Arius. 

That  there  should  have  been  so  much  acrimony  and  viru 
lence  in  the  Arian  controversy,  and  so  much  misery  arising  out 
of  it,  seems  the  most  strange  when  we  observe  how  very  near 
Arius  comes  to  the  truth  ;  and  reflect  that  the  difference  between 
the  orthodox  and  him  relates  to  a  thing  of  which  we  have  not 
distinct  ideas.  He  seemed  to  think,  that,  if  the  Son  could  in  any 
sense  be  called  by  that  name,  or  could  be  said  to  have  been 
begotten,  the  Father  must  have  existed  before  him  :  i.  e.  there 
must  have  been  some  time  when  the  Father  was  and  the  Son 
was  not.  He  was  willing  to  put  that  time  as  far  back  as  any  304 
one  pleased :  he  would  call  the  Son  a^povws  yevvqQeis,  irpo 
TWV  aiwvwv,  and  the  Nicene  Creed  only  says,  "  begotten  before 
all  worlds  ;"  -jrpo  rwv  aiwvuv.  We  do  not  conceive  Christ  to  be 
unbegotten  ;  only  as  we  want  ideas,  we  do  not  dare  to  reason, 
or  make  the  least  variation  in  what  the  Scripture  seems  to 
represent.  The  same  may  be  observed  of  the  reasoning  of 
Arius,  when  he  says,  that,  as  Christ  came  from  the  Father,  if 
he  was  consubstantial  with  him,  a  part  of  the  Father  must  have 
left  the  rest ;  he  must  be  divisible.  A  saying  accommodated  to 
inferior  intellects  is  not  to  be  taken  or  used  as  a  plain  saying 
not  accommodated,  to  which  we  have  adequate  ideas.  Indeed 
Arius  does  call  the  Son  a  creature,  or  Kricrfjia,  but  then  he  says, 
that  he  is  not  on  a  footing  with  other  creatures;  going  probably 

1  Art.  i.  sect.  H. 

2  Epiphanius,  Hacr.  69,  mentioned  by  Lardner,  Works,  vol.  iv. 


IV.  ii.  6.]  THE  SON  OF  GOD.  549 

II.  upon  the  text,  which  calls  Christ  "  the  first-born  of  every  crea 
ture3:" — and  besides,  it  seems  to  be  indifferent  to  him  whether 
he  uses  the  word  -yer^^a,  or  /cr/ayta:  he  uses  them  promiscu 
ously:  KT'KJILCL  TOU  OeovTeXeiov,  a\\  OVK  w$  ei/  TMV  KTia"imaTwv — 
yevvrifta,  ctXX'  OVK  tu?  ev  TWV  yei'vyjuaTtov.  And,  though  he  had 
not  used  any  word  but  creation,  yet  the  difference  between  his 
creation  before  all  ages,  and  our  generation  "  before  all  worlds," 
would  not  be  great  to  those  who  estimated  ideas  by  their  dis 
tinctness  :  it  needed  not  surely  to  have  been  a  cause  of  war  and 
persecution.  But  we  are  now  only  concerned  with  history. 
We  see  then,  that  Arius  and  his  followers  denied  the  consul)- 
stantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  but  acknowledged  his 
pre-existence. 

There  is  another  opinion  sometimes  ascribed  to  the  Arians, 
and  that  is,  the  opinion  that  Christ  had  not  properly  an  human 
305  soul.  On  this  account  the  Arians  are  sometimes4  joined  with 
the  Apollinarians ;  which  will  be  a  sufficient  reason  why  we 
should  mention  the  Apollinarian  doctrine  at  this  time.  Indeed, 
the  word  Arian  has  sometimes  been  used  as  a  sort  of  generic* 
term,  including  even  Socinians. 

Apollinarius  (or  Apollinaris,  for  the  name  is  differently 
written)  is  placed  in  the  year  362  :  he  is  called  bishop  of  Lao- 
dicea,  but  there  is  some  doubt  whether  he  ever  was  bishop.  He 
seems  to  have  been  a  great  man,  and  a  great  writer.  The  loss 
of  his  thirty  books  against  Porphyry  is  particularly  lamented ; 
the  more,  as  they  seem  to  have  been  destroyed  merely  on 
account  of  his  solutions  of  the  Incarnation.  It  seems  to  have 
occurred  to  this  eminent  man,  that,  if  Jesus  was  informed  by 
the  Word  dwelling  in  him,  it  was  needless  for  him  to  have  the 
use  of  human  reason ;  nay,  impossible  for  a  being,  who  saw  and 
knew  as  the  Son  of  God,  to  investigate  slowly  after  the  manner 
of  men.  He  therefore  held,  that  the  Logos  must,  to  Jesus 
Christ,  supply  the  place  of  an  human6  soul.  I  see  nothing  like 
folly  in  the  notion  taken  separately;  nor  do  I  find  any  reason 

the  doctrine  of  Apollinarius;  but  in  the 
Serm.  191,  or  23fi,  de  Tempore,  where 
the  creed  of  Pelagius  is  introduced,  that 
doctrine  is  described  as  consisting  in  this, 


3  Col.  i.  15. 

4  Lord  King  on  the  Creed,  pp.  181, 
182.     Pearson  on  the   Creed,  "He  was 
conceived,"   p.  324,  1st  edit.     See  also 
p.  380,  about  the  A 070?  suffering.   Lard- 
ner's  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  80. 

5  Mosheim,  IJth  cent,  end  of  chap.  vi. 
This  may  perhaps  be  some  defence  of 
Voltaire.    See  Note  on  Art.  i.  sect.  6. 

fi  This   is  the  most   common  idea  of 


that  the  assumed  man  is  only  a  part  of 
the  ordinary  natural  man,  whether  de 
ficient  in  came,  anima,  or  sensu.  Which 
agrees  with  Waterland  on  the  Athanasian 
Creed. 


550  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  7. 

why  Lardner  should  speak  of  it  as  a  fancy  of  old  age1.  Its  II. 
weakness  consists  in  its  being  inconsistent  with  some  parts  of  306 
Scripture,  which  describe  Christ  as  "perfect  man"  in  body  and 
mind.  Bishop  Pearson2  makes  Amuses  notion  to  be  this  which 
we  have  now  described ;  and  that  of  Apollinarius  (as  differing 
from  Arius's)  to  consist  in  a  distinction  between  the  animal  and 
rational  soul ;  but  body  with  animal  soul  seems  to  me  to  mean 
only  the  body  living.  And,  when  the  ancients  called  the  fol 
lowers  of  Apollinarius  Dimceritce,  I  understand  them  to  mean, 
that  the  Apollinarians  held  Christ  to  be  what  was  really  only 
two  thirds*  of  Christ;  that  is,  body  and  AO'YO?,  instead  of  body 
and  soul  and  Aoyos. 

Apollinarius  seems  not  then  to  differ  from  the  Catholics,  as 
to  the  consubstantiality  or  pre-existence ;  but  as  to  both  the 
other  points,  the  incarnation  and  hypostatic  union. 

Semi-Arians  are  said 4  to  have  allowed,  that  Christ  was 
o/uLoovaios  with  the  Father,  but  not  by  nature,  only  by  privilege. 
We  will  not  be  more  particular  about  the  followers  of  Arius; 
who  softened  his  doctrine,  and  approached  nearer  to  orthodoxy 
than  their  master. 

7-  We  are  next  to  mention  the  notions  of  the  followers  of  307 
Photinus  relative  to  our  present  subject.  This  person  was  of 
Galatia,  and  is  placed  A.  D.  431  :  he  was  a  bishop,  an  eloquent 
speaker,  and  a  good  writer;  and  extremely  beloved  in  his  dio 
cese.  He  had  followers,  so  as  to  make  a  sect.,  called,  after  him, 
Photinians.  He  seems  to  have  been  convinced,  by  the  plain 
ness  of  the  scriptural  accounts,  concerning  the  miraculous  birth 
of  Christ;  but  to  have  been  confoundedly  the  majesty  of  those 
expressions,  which  proclaim  the  condition  of  our  Lord  before  he 
came  into  this  world  :  and  thus  to  have  fixed  his  doctrine : — 

1  Lardner   (Works,   vol.  iv.   p.  387)      but  they  are  very  wrong  who  thought  him 
only  says,  "latter  part  of  his  life;"  but  i   born  of  Joseph  and  Mary  (110).     Lard- 


at  the  same  time  he  expresses  an  irksome- 
ness  about  relating  the  opinion  ;  that  is, 
perhaps  as  a  sort  of  Socinian,  or  Naza- 
rean.  He  has  written  against  it — on  oc 
casion,  probably,  of  Mr.  Whiston's  re 
viving  it.  See  his  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  80. 
Lardner's  own  notions  appear  in  the  same 
tract  or  letter.  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  110, 
lowest  line  (of  text),  pp.  97.  104.  The 


ner  disapproves  interpretations  of  pro 
fessed  Socinians,  as  far  as  he  has  read 
them  (112),  but  he  has  not  read  much  of 
them ;  has  not  read  Crellius  de  Uno  Deo 
Patre  (112). 

2  On  Creed,  p.  324,  1st  edit.  p.  160,  fol. 

3  When  8i/j.oipla  signifies  a  double  por 
tion,  there  seems  to  be  an  idea  of  dividing 
the  thing  between  two  persons,  giving  one 


Word  is  not  a  Person,  does  not  mean  the  '   of  them  double  the  other ;  that  is,  two 

Son  (97).     The  Son  and  Messiah  are  the  thirds  of  the  whole, 

same:  the   Son  was  miraculously  con-  4  Mosheim,  cent.  iv.  part  2.  chap.  v. 

ceived   (99);   yet  he  was  a  man  (104);  sect.  16. 


IV.  ii.  8.]  THE  SON   OF  GOD.  551 

II.  that  Christ  could  not  be  called  the  Son  of  God  till  he  was  born; 
and  that  he  was  called  so  because  he  was  born  of  a  Virgin,  by 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  that  Photinus  denied  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  therefore  his  consubstantiality  with 
the  Father.  His  enemies  called  him  an  Ebionite,  but  this  was 
reviling 5. 

As  Photinus  was  condemned  for  following  the  errors  of  Paul 
of  Samosata,  and  of  Marcellus,  they  may  be  mentioned  here. 
Paul  of  Samosata  (on  the  Euphrates,  near  Antioch)  was  bishop 
of  Antioch  in  260.  A  good  deal  is  said  of  him,  because,  by  his 
eloquence  and  ostentation,  he  had  gained  a  popularity  which 
made  him  troublesome.  His  enemies  differ  in  their  representa 
tions  of  him,  and  we  have  no  accounts  of  his  own.  On  the  whole, 
I  see  nothing  better  for  us  to  conclude,  than  that  his  doctrine 
was  really  much  the  same  with  that  just  now  described ;  agree 
ably  to  what  is  said  by  Augustin6 :  The  Paulians  were,  in  his 
time,  called  Photinians.  Marcellus  is  placed  in  320.  He  was 

308  bishop  of  Ancyra;  and,  as  such,  a  countryman  of  Photinus:  he 
was  also  his  master.  It  does  not  seem  as  if  there  was  any  dif 
ference  between  their  doctrines,  which  we  can  now  ascertain,  on 
good  grounds.  I  have  read  somewhere,  that  Paul  took  the 
term  Aoyos  in  the  sense  of  Aeryo?  evctdOeTos,  or  internal  reason ; 
and  that  Marcellus  said  the  Aoyos,  was  to  be  finally  absorbed  in 
the  Father:  which  implies  that  Marcellus  made  the  Logos  the 
Son,  or  a  Person  7,  though  Paul  did  not. 

8.  The  next  opinions  are  those  of  Nestorius.  We  have 
already8  mentioned  him ;  but  with  a  different  view  from  our 
present  one.  In  Scripture,  we  find  many  things  predicated  of 
Jesus  Christ,  which  cannot  be  predicated  of  man ;  and  many 
which  cannot  be  predicated  of  God;  and  yet,  though  he  is 
sometimes  said  to  do  divine  things,  sometimes  human,  there  is 
only  one  subject  to  those  different  predicates:  he  is  only  spoken 
of  as  one  agent,  or  person.  The  Church  has  no  better  way  of 
expressing  this  matter,  though  it  is  unintelligible  to  all  men, 
than  by  saying,  that  two  natures,  the  divine  and  human,  are 
united  in  one  person.  In  this,  Nestorius  fancied  he  saw  some 
great  difficulties ;  for  though  it  be  true,  that  things  both  divine 


5  See  Vincent.  Lirin.  chap.  17-  Lard- 
ner's  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  361. 

6  Haer.  sect.  44.  Augustin  died   A.  D. 
430. 

7  See  Bp.  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  note 
about  Marcellus  ; — "  Sitteth  on  the  right 


hand,"  &c.  "Whose  Kingdom  shall 
have  no  end."  Marcellus  thought  that 
Christ  should  reign  for  ever  after  his  as 
cension,  but  that  his  human  nature  should 
have  an  end. 
8  Art.  i.  sect.  18. 


552 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  ii.  8. 


and  human  are  predicated  of  Christ,  yet  this  seems  to  be  under  II. 
certain  regulations  or  limitations  of  reason  and  common  sense. 
Would  any  evangelist  have  said  that  Mary  was  the  mother  of 
her  Creator?  that /the  Divinity  died?  that  the  blood  of  the 
Deity  was  shed  on  the  cross  ?  that  the  same  person  was  God 
and  victim  ?  If  they  would  not,  then  it  cannot  be  laid  down,  309 
that  all  language  is  proper,  which  suits  the  hypothesis  of  two 
natures  in  one  person.  No,  says  Nestorius,  there  would  be  less 
difficulty  in  saying,  'divine  Jesus  Christ  knew  men's  thoughts, 
&c. ;  human  Jesus  Christ  was  hungry  and  thirsty.1  '  Though 
there  is  certainly  but  one  outward  appearance?  But,  however 
such  a  language  might  solve  any  difficulties,  the  Church  was 
right  in  not  adopting  it,  because  it  is  not  the  language  of  Scrip 
ture:  nevertheless,  it  is  a  lamentable  thing  that  any  man  should 
suffer  so  much  as  Nestorius  did,  for  an  opinion  so  near  to  ortho 
doxy  as  his  was,  and  differing  only  in  what  was  unintelligible. 
For  we  say,  that  Jesus  Christ  has  some  things  mentioned  of 
him  as  God,  and  some  as  man,  so  that  he  may  be  said  to  have 
two  characters.  He  knew  thoughts  as  God,  had  appetites  as 
man  ;  the  former,  by  virtue  of  his  Divine  nature ;  the  latter, 
by  virtue  of  his  human  nature.  Thus  Nestorius  leaves  our 
first  two  points  untouched  ;  but  he  differs  from  Catholics,  as 
to  the  incarnation  and  the  hypostatic  union.  For  his  notion 
led  him  on  to  say  something,  which  we  should  understand  thus: 
the  divine  Christ  was  not  born,  Mary  was  only  the  mother  of 
the  human  Christ :  she  was  X/oiarroro/cos,  not  Beoro/cos ; 
though  the  divine  Christ  was  united  with  the  human  Christ 
in  one  visible  form  ]. 

But  we  have  not  mentioned  that  Nestorius  may  be  placed 
in  428,  when  he  was  made  bishop  of  Constantinople.  He  was  a 
Syrian.  He  was  condemned  in  431,  at  the  General  Council  of 
Ephesus,  and  was  banished  to  Egypt.  The  town  where  he  re-  310 
sided  being  attacked,  he  wandered  about  in  want  and  misery 
till  he  died  !  Though  Vincent  of  Lerins  speaks  of  him2  as  an 
enemy,  we  may  collect,  from  what  he  has  said,  that  Nestorius 
was  a  man  of  great  abilities,  which  he  applied  with  diligence  to 
the  service  of  Christianity,  and  was  very  much  revered  and  be 
loved. 


1  See  Mosheim,  cent.  5.  part  2.  chap.  v. 
sect.  12.  Maclaine's  note.  Bp.  Pearson 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  aware  that 
Nestorius  used  TT/OOO-COTTOV,  instead  of 
Syriac  barsopa,  to  signify  an  outward 


appearance;   and  therefore  he  says  (on 
Creed,  p.  331,  1st  edit.)  that  Nestorius 
contradicts  himself. 
2  P.  330,  edit.  Paris,  1669. 


IV.  ii.  9.]  THE  SON  OF   GOD.  553 

II.  9.  Eutyches  was  only  the  head  of  a  monastery  at  Constan 
tinople.  We  may  place  him  in  451,  the  time  of  the  General 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  by  which  he  was  condemned.  The  er 
rors  of  Nestorius  are  said  to  have  animated  his  zeal  so  much, 
as  to  make  him  run  into  an  opposite  extreme ;  but,  in  order  to 
be  as  candid  as  possible,  let  us,  as  in  other  instances,  put  our 
selves  in  his  place,  and  conceive  how  he  might  be  drawn  into  his 
peculiar  opinions.  '  Nestorius  certainly,'  we  may  imagine  him 
to  say,  '  breaks  through  all  scriptural  expressions  and  ideas,  in 
making  two  Christs.  Nothing  can  be  more  plain  than  that 
there  is  but  one;  nay,  it  seems  impossible  in  itself  that  there 
should  be  more  than  one :  I  should  rather  be  inclined  to  say, 
Christ  had  but  one  nature ;  for,  if  the  Divine  nature  is  united 
to  the  human,  what  alas  !  can  the  human  be  in  such  a  com 
pound  ?  it  must  be  as  nothing !  Nay  indeed,  if  you  suppose  it 
to  have  any  magnitude,  or  any  efficacy  as  an  ingredient,  must 
it  not  be  as  so  much  alloy  to  lower  and  debase?  But  the  Divine 
nature  is  incapable  of  being  debased  ;  therefore  the  human  na 
ture  must  be  annihilated,  or  swallowed  up  in  the  Divine3/ 
311  However  Eutyches  reasoned,  this  was  his  opinion.  It  does  not 
interfere  with  orthodoxy,  as  to  the  points  of  consubstantiality, 
or  pre-existence ;  but  it  does,  as  to  those  of  incarnation  and 
hypostatic  union.  For  Eutyches  was  obliged  to  have  a  parti 
cular  theory,  as  to  the  conception  and  birth  of  Christ.  It  was 
obvious  to  ask  him,  '  if  Christ  is  all  divine,  by  the  Divine  na 
ture  swallowing  up  the  human,  how  could  he  be  born  ?  '  To 
this  Eutyches  must  find  some  answer ;  but  it  does  not  seem 
agreed  whether  he  said  that  the  A<xyo$  entered  into  the  Virgin's 
womb,  and  grew  in  it,  as  an  human  being  would  do ;  or  that 
the  Logos  joined  himself  to  an  human  embryo,  converting  it, 
by  the  union,  into  Divine.  In  the  former  case,  his  notion 
would  be  the  same  in  effect  with  the  old  one  mentioned  before4, 
as  having  been  ascribed  to  Valentinus. 

Eutyches  seems  to  have  been  near  the  orthodox  "  taking 
the  manhood  into  God." 


3  I  should  rather  be  apt  to  conjecture, 
that  Eutyches  had  made  use  of  some 
illustration  taken  from  metals,  so  much 
is  said  of  inconfuse,  and  other  words 
from  confnndo ;  which  seems  to  imply 
putting  into  fusion,  or  pouring  together 


is  "  one,  not  by  confusion  of  substance," 
(or  nature,)  "but  by  unity  of  person." 
Livy  has  "  confundere  in  iinum  cor 
pus" —  to  consolidate.  Photius,  in  his 
account  of  Theodoret's  2d  Dialogue,  uses 
the  expression,  »j  a<ruyxuTOS  e'ywaiv. 


two  things,  so   that  they   become  one.    i       4  Sect.  4;  and  Lord  King  on  Creed, 
The  Athanasian  Creed  says,  that  Christ       pp.  lift,  1«>7. 


554 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  10,  1 1. 


The  followers  of  Eutyches  were  called  Monophysites  ;  and  II. 
we  are  told,  that  the  Eastern  Christians  are  still  divided  into 
Nestorians  and  Monophysites1.     But  I  suppose  that  the  latter 
do  not  acknowledge  any  veneration  for  Eutyches,  or  even  own  312 
that  they  hold  his  opinions2. 

10.  On  the  Monothelites  we  need  not  dwell  much  ;   they 
did  not  exist  till  the  seventh  century.      They  held,  as  I  under 
stand,  that,  as  Christ  was  but  one  Person,  he  of  course  could 
have  but  one  will,  and  one  operation,  or  act3.      This  was  not 
an  unnatural  idea ;  but  then,  on  the  other  hand,  how  could  the 
two  natures  of  Christ  be  perfect,  if  there  was  not  a  will  of  God, 
and  a  will  of  man  ?   For  my  own  part,  I  think  we  understand 
so  little  of  the  hypostatic  union,  or  of  the  will  of  God,  or  even 
of  our  own  will,  that  a  man  might  be  doubtful,  which  side  of 
this  question  would  be  reckoned  orthodox,  and  which  heretical. 
The  notion   of  two  wills  might  seem  to  approach  as  near  to 
Nestorius's  two  Persons,  as  that  of  one  will  to  Eutyches's  one 
nature ;  yet  the  notion  of  each  nature  having  a  will,  seems  the 
orthodox  notion.      I   mention  the  question  partly  to  shew  the 
wisdom  and  moderation  of  our  Church  in  not  meddling  with  it; 
though  partly  because  it  concerns  our  present  subject,  and  was 
once  thought  important.      When  it  was  agitated,  it  occasioned 
several  councils,  though  nothing  more  seems  to  have  been  urged 
(in  substance)  than  what  I  have  now  mentioned.      Pope  Hono- 
rius,  who  died  in  638,  happened  to  be  a  Monothelite  4,  and  his 
heresy  has  been  quoted  against  the  pope's  infallibility ;  other 
wise  probably  the  debate  had  been  dropped.     This  pope  was 
condemned  at  the  sixth  General  Council,  held  at  Constatinople,  313 
in  680 ;   which  demonstrates  that  the  authority  of  one  of  them 
(pope,  or  general  council,)  is  fallible. 

11.  The  notion  of  avoiding  all  difficulties  respecting  the 


1  Called  so,  in  effect,  by  Asseman. 
In  Asseman,  torn,  in.,  there  is  a  cata 
logue  of  198  writers  (besides  Appendix) 
who  are  called  Syrian  Nestorian  writers ; 
but  the  New  Testament  is  one  book 
reckoned,  and  Clemens  Romanus  one 
author.  The  Syrian  Nestorians  reckon 
the  Apostles  to  have  been  of  their  sect. 
See  torn.  in.  part  2.  In  the  2d  torn, 
there  is  a  catalogue  of  48  Syrian  writers, 
Monophysites ;  the  source  of  whom  was 
Eutyches. 

Dr.  Joseph  Asseman  is  spoken  of  by 


Lard.  (Works,   iv.  425)  as  alive  when 
he  wrote. 

2  The  more  steady  or  bigoted  Mono 
physites  losing  their  leaders  or  heads, 
who  chose  to  come  into  terms  and  keep 
their  bishopricks,  called  themselves  CCKC- 
<j>a\oi,  Acephali,  under  which  name  they 
are    often    mentioned    in    history.    See 
Mosheim,  Index,  Acephali. 

3  See  Mosheim,  Index,  Monothelites. 

4  See  Forbes's  Instruct.  Hist.  Theol. 
Lib.  5.  Mosheim,  8vo,  vol.   n.  189.  i.e. 
cent.  7-  part.  2.  chap.  v.  sect.  4. 


IV.  ii.  12,  13.] 


THE    SON    OF     GOD. 


555 


II.  miraculous  conception  of  the  Son  of  God,  by  considering  him 
only  as  an  adopted  Son,  was  held  by  Elipand  in  the  eighth 
century5.  It  was  of  consequence  enough  to  occasion  the  Council 
of  Frankfort,  in  7.94.  Elipand  was  archbishop  of  Toledo,  and 
he  was  joined  by  Felix,  bishop  of  Urgel  in  Catalonia ;  but 
these  two  only  solved  the  birth  of  Jesus  by  their  hypothesis  of 
adoption  :  they  owned  the  Son  of  God  to  be  really  and  natu 
rally  such,  in  his  pre-existent  state6.  Thus  they  interfered  with 
the  Catholic  doctrine  only  as  to  the  Incarnation,  and  with  that 
chiefly  in  words.  They  would  probably  urge,  that,  though 
Christ  in  his  divine  nature  was  properly  called  the  Son  of  God, 
yet  it  was  absurd  to  say  that  a  man  was  begotten  by  God. 
When  therefore  Christ  in  his  human  nature  was  called  the  Son 
of  God,  the  words  must  not  be  taken  literally ;  Jesus  might  be 
an  adopted  Son,  but  not  a  real  one. 

12.  The  Socinians  have  been  mentioned  before7.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  need  add  any  thing  here.  Socinus  is  said  to 
have  allowed  that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin 8,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  that  he  was  a  God,  so  that  he  might  be  adored. 
Dr.  Priestley's  Letters  to  Dr.  Price  give  us  the  most  recent 

314  ideas  of  Socinianism,  and  shew  the  degrees  of  it9.  In  the  low 
est  kind  of  Socinianism,  he  says,  "  Christ  is  considered  as  a 
mere  man,  the  Son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  naturally  as  fal 
lible  and  peccable  as  Moses,  or  any  other  prophet."  All  this  is 
to  banish  superstition,  it  would  be  said,  and  foolish  admiration; 
and  to  restore  the  authority  of  reason  and  common  sense  10. 

13.  With  regard  to  Anabaptists,  as  they  are  expressly  men 
tioned  in  another  Article11,  we  may  hereafter  have  occasion  to 
give  some  account  of  them.  Menno12  denied  that  Christ  de 
rived  his  body  from  his  mother ;  said  that  he  assumed  it :  it 
was  created  out  of  nothing — created  in  his  mother's  womb. 
The  Anabaptists  in  general,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
held  the  old  doctrine13  of  Christ  passing  through  the  womb 
of  his  mother,  as  through  a  tube.  Joan  of  Kent  was  burnt 14, 


5  Some  earlier  writers  ward  off,  or  re 
ject,   this  notion,  as  appears  from  Bp. 
Pearson's  Note,  Creed,  p.  281,  1st  edit. ; 
which  seems  to  imply  that  it  had  been 
field  before. 

6  See  Mosheim,  vol.  n.  8vo,  p.  274; 
or  cent.  8.  2.  v.  3;  and  Forbes's  Instruct. 
Hist.  Theol. ;  and  Bp.  Pearson  as  above. 

7  Art.  i.  sect.  B. 


8  See  South's  Serm.  7,  of  vol.  in. 

9  See  p.  101,  of  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters. 

10  Art.  i.  sect.  16. 

11  Art.  xxxviii. 

12  Lived  A.  D.  1505-1561.     13  Sect.4. 
14  Nicholls  on  Articles,  p.  37,  col.  1. 

Hume's  Hist.  Edw.  vi.  chap.  i.  end. 
Fuller,  Book  vii.  398.  K.  Edw.  vi. 
Diurnal. 


556 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  ii.  14. 


because  she  would  not,  after  a  twelvemonth's  trial,  renounce  this  II. 
doctrine.  Bishop  Pearson,  from  Episcopius,  speaks l  of  Flan- 
drian  Anabaptists  who  took  this  phrase,  "The  Word  was  made 
flesh,"  in  a  sense  strictly  literal :  who  supposed  a  "  conversion 
of  the  Godhead  into  flesh."  And  this  expression  of  the  Creed 
seems  to  shew  that  the  same  opinion  had  been  declared  before2. 

14.  Lastly,  we  were  to  mention  the  notions  of  a  few  indi 
viduals.  Servede,  or  Servetus,  held  some  extravagant  notions 
at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  suffered  death  for  them  at 
Geneva  in  1553,  on  the  prosecution  of  Calvin ;  but,  as  our  315 
Article3  does  not  certainly  allude  to  them,  and  as  they  are  to 
me4  unintelligible,  I  will  not  transcribe  any  historian  about 
them.  He  was  a  Spaniard,  a  famous  physician5,  and  much 
noticed  in  his  time. 

Mr.  Whiston6,  well  known  at  Cambridge,  in  his  day, 
adopted  the  opinion  of  Apollinarius.  This  was  mentioned 
before,  as  also  the  opinion  of  Emanuel  Swedenborg. 

The  notion  of  Valentinus  Gentilis,  who,  after  recanting, 
relapsed,  and  suffered  death  at  Geneva,  in  1566,  would  pro 
bably  be  known  in  15627. 

Here  we  close  the  history  of  the  second  Article:  and  I 
think  it  will  appear  from  our  manner  of  describing  heresies, 
that  heretics  might  honestly  mean8,  in  forming  their  several 
hypotheses,  to  avoid  difficulties  which  had  given  uneasiness, 
and  to  give  solutions  which  would  afford  relief  and  comfort  to 
the  doubting  mind.  And,  moreover,  that  they  have  used  some 
arguments,  which  are  powerful,  (sometimes  irresistible)  in 
themselves,  when  only  the  For  is  considered,  and  we  attend 
only  to  their  words;  though  they  failed  by  overlooking  some 
parts  of  Holy  Writ,  or  reasoning  without  intelligible  propo 
sitions.  Ought  such  persons  to  be  persecuted?  ought  they  31 6 
not  rather  to  be  respected  and  pitied  ?  ought  we  not  to  own 


1  Creed,  Art.  iii.  p.  326,  1st  edit. 

2  See  Serm.  de  Tempore,  236  (or  191 ) 
sect.  4.   "  Qui  asserere  conantur  omnia 
quae  erant  Divinitatis  in  hominem  demi- 
grasse."    Amongst    the  works  of  Au- 
gustin. 

3  That  some  of  our  Articles  were  made 
against    Servetians,    see  Doctrina,  $c. 
Eccles.  AngL  1617.  Contents. 

4  Mosheim's  account  might  be  read. 
See  his  Index,  under  Servetus. 

5  Dr.  Hunter  said,  that  Servetus  saw 


enough  to  find  out  the  circulation  of  the 
blood,  but  did  not  infer  properly  from 
what  he  saw. 

6  Art.  i.  sect.  6.     A  remarkable  mix 
ture  of  science  and  heated  melancholy 
imagination.     He  was  deprived  of   his 
mathematical  professorship,  and  expelled 
Cambridge  University.    Died  1752. 

7  His  opinions  are  best  seen  in  his  re 
cantation.     See  Cheynell's  Rise  of  Soci- 
nianisrne,  p.  9.     His  death  is  mentioned* 
p.  13.  »  Sect.  3. 


IV.  H.  15.]  THE    SON    OF    GOD.  557 

II.  ourselves  indebted  to  them  for  the  services  they  have  done  to 
the  common  cause,  on  many  occasions?  ought  we  not  to  be 
kindly  affectioned  towards  them,  with  brotherly  love  ?  If  in 
deed  they  attack  us,  or  disturb  our  social  devotions  and  in 
structions,  we  may  defend  ourselves ;  and  acts  of  defence  must 
precede  the  actual  attack,  otherwise  they  come  too  late ;  but, 
even  in  this  case,  we  must  not  be  impatient,  nor  timid :  we 
must  hope  all  things,  and  endure  all  things,  as  far  as  is  con 
sistent  with  our  safety  as  members  of  a  religious  society. 

But  I  have  said  such  strong  things,  pleading  the  cause  of 
those  who  maintained  heretical  tenets,  that  I  am  afraid  of  being- 
thought  to  favour  them  too  much.  Such  a  suspicion  would 
however  do  me  wrong.  No ;  I  wish  all  Christians  happy,  but 
my  own  opinions  coincide  with  those  of  our  Church ;  and  I 
think  that  our  Church,  in  forming  its  doctrines,  has  acted  as 
wisely  as  possible.  All  the  parts  of  Scripture  relating  to  any 
particular  subject  have  been,  seemingly,  collected  9and  arranged: 
an  opinion  has  been  formed  out  of  them  all :  so  that  none  have 
been  neglected.  If  any  doctrines  have  only  had  strong  reasons 
urged  on  their  side,  but  have  been  formed  by  those  who  over 
looked  some  parts  of  Scripture,  these  have  been  rejected. 

Whatever  clamours  may  have  been  made  by  some  about 
our  neglecting  reason,  we  can  say,  that  we  have  been  far  from 
undervaluing  it;  nay,  we  have,  in  the  method  of  acting  just 
now  described,  done  what  the  most  enlightened  reason  would 
dictate.  We  do  indeed  object  to  reasoning  by  means  of  un- 
317  intelligible  propositions,  because  reason  tells  us  that  we  cannot 
reason  without  ideas ;  and  experience  proves  that  we  get  wrong 
whenever  we  attempt  it.  We  object  to  calling  preconceived 
notions  at  any  era  the  dictates  of  reason,  in  the  more  difficult 
doctrines  of  Scripture ;  because  reason  tells  us  that  we  are  not 
to  trust  our  preconceived  notions  against  the  Scriptures  '"in 
things  which  relate  to  the  Nature  of  God,  or  to  the  manner  in 
which  he  is  to  act  in  order  to  promote  the  happiness  of  his 
creatures ;  especially  in  cases  out  of  the  common  course  of 
nature. 

15.  Having  finished  our  historical  view  of  this  Article, 
we  come  to  the  explanation  of  the  expressions  contained  in  it. 
This  will  be  little  more  than  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  his 
torical  remarks  already  made,  taking  the  order  of  the  expres- 

9  Sect  8. 
10  See  a  passage  to  this  purpose  translated  in  Lardner,  Works,  vol.  in.  p.  Ifi. 


558  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.   15. 

sions  as  they  stand.  We  prove  nothing  now;  nay,  we  affirm  II. 
nothing:  we  only  shew  what  is  affirmed  or  implied;  what  re 
jected.  Indeed,  the  best  idea  of  all  explanations  of  Articles  is, 
that  they  shew  what  particular  errors  or  heresies  are  intended 
to  be  rejected  or  denied  by  the  words  made  use  of.  The  lan 
guage  of  each  Article  is  affirmative,  but  the  true  meaning 
negative.  In  some  cases  it  may  perhaps,  in  strictness,  mean 
only,  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  affirm  that  which  we  reject. 

Our  Church  first  declares,  that  the  Ao7os  is  not  merely 
either  reason  or  speech,  but  a  Person,  the  same  who  is  called 
the  Son  of  God ;  who  is  not  to  be  on  a  footing  with  what  have 
been  called  ceons,  except  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  Scrip 
ture  says,  that  "  God  is  a  Spirit1 ."  When  it  is  said,  that  this 
person  is  "begotten"  of  the  Father,  the  meaning  is,  to  acknow 
ledge  the  relation  of  paternity  and  filiation,  without  pretending  318 
to  have  any  distinct  or  adequate  ideas  of  it ;  to  acknowledge  it 
as  what  has  been  mentioned  to  us  by  authority,  as  the  thing 
most  proper  for  us  to  conceive  as  far  as  we  are  able  ;  as  least 
likely  to  make  us  run  into  impiety  or  profaneness.  The  re 
lation  itself  may  possibly  bear  some  analogy  to  that  which  we 
call  by  the  same  name.  This  we  say  with  diffidence  ;  but  we 
use  the  word  "  begotten "  with  more  confidence  to  deny  and 
reject  the  notion,  that  this  person  was  created,  at  any  time 
whatsoever,  either  "  before  all  worlds,"  or  in  the  virgin's  womb: 
to  deny,  that  the  Son  can  with  propriety  be  said  to  be  cast 
forth,  or  separated2  from  the  Father ;  to  come  from  the  stars, 
or  the  elements. 

When  it  is  said,  that  this  generation  was  "from  everlast 
ing"  it  is  meant,  not  only  to  reject  the  notion,  that  Christ 
might  be  called  the  Son  of  God  merely  because  he  was  con 
ceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  to  deny  that  any  limit  whatever 
can  be  assigned  to  the  duration  between  the  generation  of 
Christ  and  his  birth  of  the  blessed  virgin :  which  is  to  declare 
that  duration  to  be  infinite*. 

"  Of  the  Father,"  serves  to  make  the  generation  just  now 
mentioned  still  more  definite  ;  and  to  distinguish  it  still  more 
clearly  from  that  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which  the 
Son  of  God  "  took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed 
virgin. " 

1  John  iv.  24.  |   when  the  words,  "of  one  substance  with 

2  This  explains  impartibilis  in  the  first    I   the  Father,"  occur. 
Article;  and  may  afterwards  be  of  use,    I       3  Art.  i.  sect.  10. 


IV.  ii.  15.]  THE   SON  OF   GOD.  559 

II.  When  our  Church  calls  this  Person  "  the  very  and  eternal 
God"  the  meaning  is,  that  he  is  not  only  divine,  or  a  God  in 
some  inferior  sense,  but  that  we  have  no  right  to  distinguish 
between  him  and  the  real  God ;  that  we  are  incapable  of 

319  settling  any  precedence  between  them,  so  as  to  say,  with  Arius, 
that  the  Father  was  before  the  Son.      Whatever  the  truth  may 
be,  we  declare  against  that  being  professed  by  any  Christian ; 
and  in  several  points,  we  may  perhaps  be  said  not  so  much  to 
reject  a  notion,  because  we  see  it  to  be  false,  as  to  declare  that 
no  man  has  a  right  to  hold  such  a  notion.      Any    of   these 
expressions  must  of  course  disclaim  the  notion   that   the    first 
existence  of  Christ  was  upon  earth. 

The  expression,  "  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,"  one 
spiritual  substance,  was  explained  under  the  last  Article4. 
This  seems  opposed  to  the  notion  that  the  Son  was  (a  7rpo/3o\tj) 
cast  forth  or  separated  from  the  Father.  A  Son  is  always 
of  the  same  rank  with  his  Father  ;  and  in  this  rank  there  is 
but  one  Being. 

This  divine  Person,  our  Church  affirms,  took  human  nature 
in  the  Virgin's  womb ;  in  opposition  to  those  who  held  only 
the  Divinity  of  Christ.  The  words  "of  her  substance51'1 
mean  to  reject  several  errors.  They  deny  that  the  Logos  or 
Word  passed  through  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  as  through  a 
tube ;  that  Christ  was  created  in  her  womb,  and  every  fancy 
which  describes  her  as  different,  in  her  conception  and  nutrition 
of  her  unborn  embryo,  from  a  proper  human  mother.  They 
also  seem  to  deny  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was,  from 
the  time  of  conception,  swallowed  up  in  the  divine. 

The  next  words  at  least  do  this  undeniably  ;  "  two  whole 
and  perfect  natures."  They  also  reject  the  error  that  the 
Aoyos  was  literally  made  flesh,  or  converted,  or  transub 
stantiated,  into  the  bodily  substance  of  man  ;  as  well  as  that 

320  the  divine  and  human  natures  were  melted  down,  as  it  were, 
into  one. 

The  words  "  one  Person,'1'1  or  viroaTaais,  reject  the  idea, 
that,  because  there  are  two  natures  conjoined,  there  must  of 
necessity  be  two  agents,  or  persons;  and  imply  the  same  as 
if  it  had  been  said,  all  is  predicated  of  one,  all  was  performed 
by  one.  And  therefore,  that  Christ,  both  in  his  pre-existent 
and  present  state,  should  be  called  the  Son  of  God. 

4  Art.  i.  sect.  10. 

5  Serm.  de  Tempore,  193,  (or  238),  sect.  3. 


560 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  H.  16. 


" Never  to  be  divided"  in  Latin  "  inseparabiliter,"  seems  II. 
to  reject  the  imagination  that  Christ  will  finally  be  absorbed  in 
the  Father,  or  restored  to  the  luminaries  of  heaven,  or  the 
elements  of  earth.  It  seems  also  calculated  to  hinder  us  from 
presuming  to  assign  any  time  when  Christ  will  become  entirely 
unconnected  with  human  nature1.  But  we  ought  not  here 
to  encroach  on  the  4th  Article. 

"  One  Christ" — the  one  person,  of  whom  we  have  spoken, 
is  called  Jesus  and  Christ,  Jesus  being  his  name,  and  Christ 
the  name  of  his  office  ;  but  yet  Jesus  is  not  to  be  looked  upon 
as  a  different  character  from  Christ,  much  less  as  a  character 
opposed  to  Christ ;  nor  can  it  be  properly  said,  that  Jesus 
suffered  and  Christ  did  not  suffer ;  or  that  Jesus  suffered 
when  deserted  by  Christ :  neither  is  any  one,  in  imitation  of 
Nestorius,  to  imagine  two  Christs. 

"  Very  God  and  very  man"  This  expression  implies,  that 
the  person,  of  whom  we  are  speaking,  is  not  more  truly  and 
really  God  than  he  is  man,  both  in  soul  and  body.  And  there 
fore,  with  regard  to  the  human  soul,  it  sets  aside*  the  notion  that 
the  Aoyos  supplied  the  place  of  the  rational  faculty  to  our 
Lord  ;  and  with  regard  to  the  body,  it  declares  that  there  was  321 
no  deception  in  appearances — no  continued  trope  or  mystical 
expression  in  the  evangelical  history,  relative  to  the  body  of 
Christ2. 

This  last  thing,  with  regard  to  the  body,  is  more  par 
ticularly  marked  in  the  word  "truly"  Christ  suffered,  &c. 
not  ev  $o/c»jcra  in  appearance  only,  as  the  Docetae,  Gnostics,  or 
Oriental  heretics  thought,  but  in  reality  ;  and  not  only  Jesus, 
but  Christ  may  be  properly  said  to  have  suffered,  though  it 
cannot  properly  be  said  that  the  Deity*  suffered. 

If  the  remaining  expressions  want  any  explanation,  it 
must  be  deferred  till  after  the  ninth  Article;  for  the  reason 
already  mentioned,  at  the  opening  of  this  Article. 

16.  Having  then  offered  an  explanation  of  the  expressions 
found  in  our  Article,  we  come,  in  the  next  place,  to  attempt  a 
proof  of  the  propositions  of  which  it  is  made  up.  And  here 
our  best  method  seems  to  be,  to  prove  first  the  principal  doc- 


1  See  Marcellus's  notion,  sect.  7 — 
One  of  Cerinthus^s  notions  was,  I  think, 
that  Christ  was  not,  after  his  death,  any 
longer  the  Son  of  God.  But  I  do  not  see 
this  in  Lardner's  Heresies ;  nor  in  Lord 
King  on  the  Creed. 


2  Every  English  academic  will  here 
recollect  the  title  of  Corpus  Christi  given 
to  a  college  in  each  of  our  universities. 
As  also  Tertullian's  writing  De  Came 
Christi. 

3  Impassibilis,  Art.  i. 


IV.  ii.  16.] 


THE     SOX    01      GOD. 


II.  trine  of  the  Article,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  afterwards  the 
secondary,  incidental,  or  subordinate  doctrines. 

In  proving  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  I  will  beg  leave  to  make- 
use  of  a  small  pamphlet,  printed  in  1772  at  Leeds,  which  seems 
to  me  to  give  the  arguments  or  proofs  in  a  good  form.  The 
title  is,  "  A  short  Defence  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of 
322  Christ4/1  The  author's  idea  of  the  manner  of  proving  any 
Being  to  be  divine,  agrees  in  a  good  measure  with  that  which 
I  have  already  mentioned5  as  my  own. 

That  Being  is  declared  by  the  Scriptures  to  be  divine,  to 
whom  the  Scriptures  ascribe  the  distinguishing  perfections  and 
qualities  of  Divinity.  Such  are  the  following: — 1.  Eternal 
existence.  2.  Power  of  creating.  3.  Power  of  preserving  things 
created.  4.  Omnipresence.  5.  Omniscience.  6.  A  right  to  be 
worshipped. — It  is  now  to  be  shewn,  that  these  perfections 
and  qualities  are  really  in  Scripture  ascribed  to  Christ. 

1.  Eternal  existence.  John  i.  1  ;  John  xvii.  5 ;  John  viii.  58 
(with  the  interpretation  of  the  Jews,  shewed  by  their  stoning 
,323  Christ);  Phil.ii.6;  Col.  i.  17;  Rev.  xxii.  16.  Add  Isai.  XLIV.  6\ 
compared  with  Rev.  i.  17,  and  xxii.  13;  also  Micah  v.  2. 

If  any  of  these  texts  seem  only  to  prove  pre-existence,  but 
that  not  eternal,  it  may  be  considered  whether,  in  any  of  them, 
Christ  is  made  inferior  to  the  Father ;  as  he  so  frequently  is, 
when  his  earthly  situation  is  described. 

carefully  considered  the  subjects  for  the 
satisfaction  of  my  own  mind,  and  being 
urged  by  some  friends,  with  whom  1  had 
conversed  on  these  subjects,  I  ventured 
to  submit  to  the  public  my  thoughts  on 
Dr.  Priestley's  Arguments.  I  first  in 
tended  to  have  published  three  penny 
pamphlets  on  the  subjects  of  the  Divinity 
of  Christ,  the  atonement,  and  man's 
moral  depravity.  But  the  two  first  swell 
ing  out  unavoidably  beyond  my  design, 
1  would  not  any  farther  break  in  upon 
my  professional  studies.  Whether  future 
leisure  may  ever  tempt  me  to  finish  my 
original  plan,  I  cannot  say.  At  present, 
I  have  laid  aside  all  thought  of  proceed 
ing.  What  I  have  said  proceeded  from 
the  fullest  conviction  of  my  judgment. 
I  wish  it  may  do  good." 

The  above  letter  was  written  in  17-'!!'. 
seventeen  years  after  the  publication  of 
the  pamphlet. 

5  Art.  i.  sect.  lu. 


4  Written  by  my  brother,  William 
Hey,  surgeon  at  Leeds,  Yorkshire.  Seve 
ral  years  after  I  first  used  it,  I  asked  and 
received  permission  to  mention  his  name. 
The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter 
of  his  :  "  The  occasion  of  my  writing  the 
Short  Defences  was  as  follows.  A  large 
number  of  penny  pamphlets  against  the 
leading  doctrines  of  Christianity  were 
published  here,  and  were  circulated  with 
great  industry.  Without  entering  fairly 
into  the  controversy,  they  were  calculated 
to  unhinge  the  minds  of  the  unwary.  A 
very  zealous  man,  but  a  wild  enthusiast, 
who  lived  here  then,  published  an  an 
swer,  which  Dr.  Priestley,  the  supposed 
author  of  the  short  tracts,  seemed  to 
glory  in.  Indeed  it  was  most  injudicious 
ly  written.  Other  short  answers  after 
wards  came  out;  but  these  were  so  de 
fective  in  argument  and  so  acrid  in  style, 
that  they  were  clearly  a  matter  of  triumph 
to  the  Socinians.  Having  for  many  years 

VOL.  I. 


562 


ARTICLES     OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  ii.  16. 


2.  Creative  power.    Heb.  iii.  4,  both  as  a  proof  and  a  prin-  II. 
ciple.     Heb.  i.  10,  &c. ;  John  i.  3,  10;   Col.  i.  16;   Rev.  iv.   11. 
These  are  direct  proofs.     But  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  and  Heb.  ii.  10, 
might  be  reckoned1;  and  it  might  be  observed,  that  using  dif 
ferent  prepositions  is  like  trying  to  catch    something  beyond 
our  grasp.      Does  not  the  miracle  of  loaves  imply  a  creative 
power  ? 

3.  Power  of  preserving.      Heb.  i.  3;    Col.  i.  17. 

4.  Omnipresence.   John  iii.  13,  with  circumstances.     Matt,     v 
xviii.  20;    1  Cor.  i.  2  (invocation  in  any  place,  implies  presence 
in  that  f  place) ;   Matt,  xxviii.  20,  compared  with  Acts  iii.  21 ; 
Heb.   ix.    24,   and  i.   3 ;    and   parallels.      Both    Omnipresence 
and  Omniscience  are  implied  in  the  6th — a  right  to  be  wor 
shipped. 

5.  Omniscience.     John  xxi.   17-      Then  with  2  Chron.  vi. 
30,  compare  Matt.  ix.  4,  and  parallel  passages.      John  ii.  25 
(contrast  Luke  ii.  52,  and  Mark  xiii.  32);    Col.  ii.  3. 

6.  A  right  to  be  worshipped.     John  xx.  28;   Matt.   viii. 
2;   Matt.  xv.  22,  25,28    (contrast  Acts  xiv.   14;    Acts  x.   25; 
Rev.  xix.  10)  ;     Matt,  xxviii.  17. 

Before  the  name  of  Christians  was  given  at  Antioch,  calling 
upon  (or  invoking2)  the  name  of  Christ  served  as  a  title.  324 

1  Cor.  i.  2.     (l  Cor.  i.  3,  is  a  species  of  prayer,   and  has  pa 
rallel  passages.) ;   Acts  vii.  59,  leaving  out  the  word  "  God" 
Heb.  i.  6,  compared  with  Psalm  xcvii.  7;    Rev.  v.  8.     Add 

2  Cor.  xii.  83, 

In  general,  or  collectively: — 1  John  v.  20;  1  Tim.  iii.  16; 
Rom.  ix.  5;  Heb.  i.  8;  Matt,  xxviii.  19  (compared  with 
1  Cor.  i.  14,  15.) ;  Col.  ii.  9. 

If  these  proofs  should  not  be  thought  sufficient,  any  one 
might  consult  Bishop  Pearson  on  those  words  of  the  Creed, 
"  his  only  Son  ,-"  or  Water-land's  Sermons  at  Lady  Moyer's 
Lecture ;  or  other  works.  The  confirmations  and  illustrations 
of  our  doctrine,  arising  from  a  continued  study  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament — from  sometimes  taking  comprehensive  views, 


1  A  comparison  of  these    two,   with 
Rom.  xi.  36,  and  parallels,    would  be 
useful  in  shewing  that  the  same  high  and 
lofty  expressions  are  used  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son. 

2  Parkhurst,  ciri/caXeo/Liai. 

3  In  this  proof,  we  must  regard  some 
thing  more  than  the  English  word  wor 


ship  ;  as  that  sometimes,  in  old  English, 
signifies  no  more  than  respect.  A  wor- 
shipful  justice  of  peace,  or  mayor.  "  With 
my  body  I  thee  worship  ;"  &c.  &c.  We 
must  therefore  take  notice  of  the  thing, 
and  the  original  language,  as  well  as  the 
English  word.  Yet  Christ  refuses  to 
worship  Satan.  Matt.  iv.  9. 


IV.  ii.  17.]  THE     SON    OF    GOD.  563 

II.  and  sometimes  examining  minutely — would  prove  inexhaustible. 
This  may  appear  from  Bishop  Pearson  on  the  Creed.  Here 
might  be  recollected1,  that  the  Son  of  God  is  divine,  as  far  as 
is  consistent  with  the  Unity  of  God,  and  the  Divinity  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  next  thing,  to  the  proof  of  the  principal  proposition, 
must  be  the  proof  of  the  subordinate  propositions  contained  in 
the  Article.  Of  these  I  can  conceive  thirteen. 

17.  1.  The  Word  is  a  Person:  not  merely  a  power  or 
.325  wisdom5.  There  are  but  four  verses  in  which  the  Word  is 
mentioned,  as  has  been  already  observed6 :  John  i.  1 ;  John 
i.  14  ;  1  John  v.  7  ;  Rev.  xix.  13.  Now,  that  the  Word  means 
a  Person  in  the  last,  I  think  even  the  Socinians7  do  not  doubt. 
We  will  only  say  then  first,  might  not  St.  John  use  the  same 
term  in  the  same  way,  in  other  parts  of  his  writings  ?  But 
every  one  must  look  at  the  context  of  the  other  passages  for 
himself,  and  see  whether  he  thinks  that  what  is  said  of  the 
Word  can  be  meant  of  a  quality.  Tropes,  no  doubt,  will  do 
a  great  deal  in  making  things  into  persons ;  but  it  must  be 
considered,  how  little  figurative  St.  John's  language  is  in 
general,  in  other  parts  of  his  narrative. 

In  the  way  of  direct  proof  we  can  only  say  then,  look  at 
John  i.  1 ;  read  on  ;  judge,  without  wishing  to  confirm  any 
particular  opinion,  whether  St.  John  was  likely  to  be  so  very 
figurative,  as  to  relate  what  he  does  of  the  Word,  if  he  did  not 
mean  that  you  should  have  a  feeling  or  conception  of  some 
Person.  Consider  what  could  induce  him  to  say,  that  the 
power  and  wisdom  of  God  were  with  God,  and  were  God  : 
what  end  he  could  have  in  view,  in  giving  a  serious  account  at 
the  opening  of  his  Gospel,  or  history,  of  the  world  being  made 
by  these  divine  attributes.  ("  He  came  to  his  own.") 

The  Arians  and  Socinians  give  different  constructions  of 
these  words,  in  order  to  suit  them  to  their  respective  opinions ; 
and  so  do  those,  who  are  between  these,  whom  Lardner  seems8 
326'  to  call  Nazareans,  himself  one  of  the  number.  Considering 
these  constructions  now  would  be  rather  answering  objections 
than  giving  direct  proof;  yet,  as  there  may  be  no  other  oppor- 


4  Art.  i.  sect.  13. 

3  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  97- 

6  Sect.  1. 

7  Where  is  the  passage,  in  which  a 
Socinian  says,  that  because  the  Word  is- 


a  person  here,  he  is  called  so  elsewhere  ? 
I  do  not  find  this  in  Priestley's  Letters 
to  Dr.  Price.    See  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  32, 
something  like  this. 
8  Vol.  x.  Works,  pp.  619.  626. 

36 2 


564 


ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION. 


[IV.  ii.   17. 


tunity,  I  will  now  say,  that  Lardner's  Paraphrase  on  John  i.  II. 
(vol.  xi.  p.  95,  &c.)  seems  to  me  very  forced  and  confused. 
When  he  is  not  able  to  avoid  allowing  that  some  Person  is 
spoken  of,  he  makes  that  Person  to  be  God  in  general :  when 
he  comes  to  some  place  where  God  in  general  cannot  be  meant, 
he  puts,  instead  of  God,  the  power  and  wisdom  of  God;  though 
the  same  subject,  or  nominative  case,  is  continued.  Our  con 
struction  is,  at  least,  more  consistent  and  simple ;  and,  in  my 
opinion,  more  honest  or  downright.  Neither  of  them  is  per 
fectly  clear  to  any  human  being. 

As  to  the  next  passage  in  which  Logos  occurs,  "  the  Word 
was  made  flesh?  this  may  come  under  the  observations  just 
now  made  on  John  i.  1 :  indeed,  it  is  a  part  of  the  same  passage; 
I  see  no  material  break  between  them. 

If  this  arguing  seems  slight,  it  must  be  considered  what  the 
nature  of  the  question  allows  of;  and  that  more  solid  argument 
is  not  used  on  the  other  side.  We  only  consider  which  side 
preponderates,  not  how  much  weight  there  is  in  either  scale. 

Of  the  other  passage  in  which  the  term  Logos  occurs, 
1  John  v.  7,  "  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven ;  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost:"  we  may  say,  the 
Father  here  is  a  person  beyond  dispute  ;  why  not  the  Word  ? 
if  he  is  not,  is  he  a  witness  in  the  same  sense  with  the  Father  ? 
But  then,  alas  !  this  goes  to  prove  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  a  Per 
son,  which  must  be  denied,  it  seems,  at  all  adventures.  So  we 
must  leave  this  till  we  come  to  the  5th  Article. 

It  is   to  the  purpose  to  observe,  that  St.  John  meant  to 
adopt  a  notion  already  received,  which  was,  as  we  have  *  ven-  327 
tured  to  conclude,  that  the  Logos  was  a  Person. 

2.  The  Word  means  the  Son  of  God.  I  suppose  it  would 
not  be  questioned,  that,  if  the  Word  was  a  Person,  he  must  be 
the  same  as  the  Son  of  God  :  therefore,  if  we  have  proved  the 
Word  a  Person,  we  have  proved  our  point.  But  our  arguments 
may  not  convince  every  one ;  therefore  we  will  endeavour  to 
prove  that  the  Word  means  the  Son,  and  so  infer  from  thence 
that  he  is  a  Person. 

By  the  way,  Lardner,  who  allows  2  no  pre-existence  to  the 
Son,  rejects  the  Socinian  interpretations  of  John  i.,  and  holds, 
that  the  expressions,  in  which  the  Word  is  spoken  of,  imply 
proper  eternity  and  divinity.  Therefore,  if  any  one  is  con- 


1  Sect.  1. 

*  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  95.  Dr.  Priestley 


says  the  same,  as  to  the  Divinity  of  the 
Logos.    Letters,  p.  114. 


IV.  ii.  18,  19.]  THE  SON  OF   GOD.  565 

II.  vinced  that  the  Word  is  the  Son,  he  must,  according  to  the  in 
terpretation  of  one  of  our  most  able  adversaries,  allow  the  Son 
to  be  eternal  and  divine — according  to  the  interpretation  of 
one  who  probably  would  be  much  inclined  to  adopt  those 
senses,  which  he  rejects. 

That  the  Word  means  the  Son,  must  appear  from  observing 
the  connection  and  consistency  of  different  parts  of  Scripture. 
In  John  i.  15,  it  seems  to  be  allowed  by3  our  adversaries  that 
the  Son  is  meant ;  therefore  every  one  must  look  back  (with  as 
little  prejudice  as  may  be)  from  that  verse  to  the  beginning  of 
the  chapter,  and  see  whether  he  can  find  two  different  agents 
mentioned  4.  Only  let  him  not  determine  to  find  two,  because 
the  notion  of  one  would  occasion  him  some  difficulties :  that 
328  would  be  to  make  a  revelation,  not  to  interpret  one  made  by 
the  Deity. 

A  comparison  of  other  passages  with  the  first  chapter  of 
John,  would  influence  me  very  strongly.  Compare  verse  3  with 
Col.  i.  1 6,  and  with  Heb.  i.  25.  The  same  effects  and  opera 
tions  seem  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Word  and  to  the  Son ;  yet 
these  could  only  proceed  from  one.  Compare  also  1  John  v.  7» 
with  Matt,  xxviii.  19 :  the  Word  in  the  former  answers  to  the 
Son  in  the  latter ;  and,  in  that  case,  there  can  be  no  difference 
between  them.  When,  in  near  fifty  places  fi,  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  are  mentioned  together,  it  is  not  likely  that,  in 
this,  two  of  them  should  be  the  same,  and  the  third  different. 

18.  3.   Our  Church  is  justified  in  using  the  term  "begotten" 
by  John  i.  14,  and  Heb.  i.  5,  6,  were  there  no  other  texts  to  the 
purpose:   but  "begotten"  is  implied,  whenever  Father  or  Son7 
is  mentioned;   and  in  the  high  sense  of  our  Article,  when  a 
time  is  supposed  prior  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem  8. 
One  might  add  John  i.  18;  iii.  16*.  18;  1  John  iv.  9. 

19.  4.     Our  Church  is  to  be  justified  in  using  the  expres 
sion  " from  everlasting"     The  expression  occurs  several  times 
in  our  translation;  but,  with  regard  to  the  Son  of  God,  perhaps 
only  in  Micah  v.  2,  before9  quoted.      Indeed,  the  other  texts 


a  Lardner,  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  97. 

4  Dr.  Priestley  makes  but  one  agent. 
Famil.   Illustr.  p.   31.     "Christ  being 
called  the  Word  of  God,"  &c. 

5  If  it  be  said,  that  cuwi/av  must  be 
translated  ages,  (Dr.  Priestley's  Letters, 
p.  119,)   compare   lleb.  xi.  3,  there  it 
seems  to  mean  world*. 

6  Art.  i.  sect.  ft. 


7  Every  sonship  implies  a  generation  ; 
the  kind  of  generation  must  correspond 
to  the  kind  of  sonship.     St.  Paul  calls 
some  Christian  converts  his  sons.    Om'si- 
tiutti  was  //t'f/otti'ii  in  his  bonds.     Phile 
mon,  ver.  10.  (Parallels  are  1  Cor.  iv.  15. 
Gal.  iv.  19.) 

8  John  xvi.  28;  Rom.  viii.  32,  &c. 
0  Sect.  Hi. 


566 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  il.  20,  21 


before  quoted  to  prove  the  pre-exist lence  of  Christ,  belong  to  II. 
this  point.     Add  John  xvii.  24.      The  ancients  used  to   say,  329 
that,  as  father  and  son  are  correlatives,  the  Father  could  not  be 
eternal,  except  the  Son  was :  there  cannot  be  a  father  without 
a  son l.      Neither,   we  may  add,  can  there  be  a  son  without 
generation. 

20.  5.  "  Of  the  Father."  Though  father  is  a  correlative 
term  to  son,  and  therefore  implied  in  it,  yet  it  seems  proper  for 
our  Church  to  take  notice  of  the  different  circumstances  in 
which  it  is  said  that  the  Son  is  begotten  of  the  Father,  and  con 
ceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  it  appeared,  from  a  survey  of 
the  Scriptures,  that  the  former  mode  of  expression  was  chiefly 
appropriated  to  a  state  previous  to  that  described  by  the  latter, 
such  a  survey  would  confirm  the  notion  of  our  Church,  that 
Christ  is  described  as  having  existed  before  his  coming  into 
this  world,  for  a  time  unbounded. 

2  21.  6.  "  Of  one  substance"  This  is  an  expression  which 
has  occasioned  much  dispute.  The  word  O/ULOOVCTIOS  was  that  on 
which  debates  chiefly  turned  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  even 
at  the  Council  of  Antioch  fifty  years  before ;  and  those  debates 
have  never  yet  been  wholly  given  up3.  We  see  that,  in  1552, 
the  Article  seemed  to  avoid  them. 

That  the  Son  of  God  can  properly  be  called  of  one  substance 
with  the  Father,  is  not  said  in  Scripture  in  so  many  words.  If 
it  had,  however  difficult  the  conception,  disputes  must  have 
been  terminated  before  this  time.  It  is  rather  implied  than 
expressed.  Supposing  the  divinity  of  the  Son  to  have  been  330 
proved,  we  say,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Father  is  God,  and 
yet  there  is  but  one  God,  therefore  they  must  be  "of  one  sub 
stance.*"  Or,  supposing  only  that  we  have  proved  Christ  to 
be  properly  called  the  Son  of  God,  antecedent  to  his  being 
concerned  with  humanity,  then  we  say,  it  is  implied  in  the 
idea  of  a  Son  that  he  is  of  the  same  species  with  his  Father. 
In  the  species  of  the  Divinity  there  is  but  one  individual; 
therefore  the  Son  must  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the 
Father. 

How  much  is  implied  in  <c  ow/i/-begotten  !" 

But,  however  exact  our  arguments  may  be  as  to  form,  we 


1  Ser.  de  Tempore,  236  (or  191),  sect.  2. 
Append,  to  5th  vol.  Aug.  "  qui  semper 
pater  fuit  semper  filium  habet." 

2  "  The  very  and  eternal  God."  These 


words  contain  the  main  proposition  of  the 
Article,  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  which 
was  given  first. 
3  See  Petavius  de  Trinitate. 


IV.  ii.  21.]  THE    SON    OF    GOD.  567 

II.  are  to  use  them  as  sparingly  as  possible,  when  we  have  not4 
distinct  ideas.  Therefore  we  will  mention  some  passages  of 
Scripture,  which  declare  the  Father  and  the  Son  to  be  one,  re 
ferring  to  what  has  been 5  before  said  to  shew,  that  though  the 
union  expressed  may  be  thought  by  some  not  to  be,  beyond  a 
doubt,  unity  of  substance,  it  yet  amounts  to  an  intimacy  of 
connection  beyond  our  defining — one  quite  out  of  our  reach — 
one  which  we  can  only  look  up  to  with  silent  awe  and  admira 
tion.  The  following  passages  are  of  the  sort  now  mentioned  : 
— John  xvii.  11,  21,  22,  23.  In  John  x.  compare  verse  30,  with 
38  ;  remarking  the  stoning  for  blasphemy.  After  these,  consi 
der  John  xiv.  28,  and  xvi.  28,  as  pointing  out  a  derivation  of 
the  Son  from  the  Father,  of  a  sort  consistent  with  the  preceding 
passages,  and  with  John  xiv.  9,  10,  11  ;  which  are  so  strong, 
that  any  candid  man  will  at  least  pardon  their  having  given 
occasion  to  the  profession  of  what  we  call  consubstantiality. 
Those  who  account  1  John  v.  7  genuine,  will  consider  that  also: 
"  these  three  are  one" 

331  It  seems  as  if  Athanasius  had  thought  that  persons  might 
be  called  ofj-oovcnot  who  were  of  one  mind",  if  they  were  of  the 
same  species ;  and  Curcellceus,  who  quotes  him  in  his  Preface7 
to  the  works  of  Episcopius,  says,  of  the  ancient  fathers  in 
general,  that  they  held  this  notion  ;  and  blames  the  moderns 
for  not  confining  themselves  to  it,  as  if  their  consubstantiality 
was  Sabellianism.  But  this  solution,  though  intended  to  avoid 
difficulties,  would  make  the  thing  no  easier  to  me  (except  it 
came  from  the  same  authority  with  the  Scriptures)  than  what 
I  just  now  observed,  that  if  two  could,  in  any  sense,  be  of  the 
same  species,  when  there  was  but  one  individual  of  that  species, 
they  must  be  of  the  same  substance:  for  the  difficulty  still 
remains,  of  reconciling  this  solution  with  all  the  Scriptures. 
Therefore  I  still  seem  compelled  to  maintain  consubstantiality; 
though  I  am  ready  to  own,  that  perfect  union  of  will,  in 
infinite  wisdom  and  spirituality,  seems  to  my  mind  not  distin 
guishable  from  unity  of  substance.  However,  when  I  say  this 
I  am  in  no  danger  of  Sabellianism;  because  I  never  think  any 
thing  in  Scripture  relative  to  the  Trinity  is  repeated  or  applied 
in  a  proper  and  legitimate  manner,  except  when  the 

4  Art.  i.  sect.  18. 

5  Art.  i.  sect.  17. 

6  Art.  i.  sect.  10,  towards  end. 


7  Preface  to  Episcopius,  sect.  vi.  Atha 
nasius,  (as  Curcclhrus  here  says)  called 


Father,  Son,   and   Holy   Ghost  consub- 
stantial,    only    "  quia    in    eadem   specie 
Deitate  conveniant,  et  summa  inter  cos 
sit  vnlnntutis  consensio." 
»  Art.  i.  sect.  17- 


568  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  21. 

scheme  is  in  view,  and  the  different  provinces  of  the  Son  and  II. 
Holy   Ghost  are  plainly  seen  and    acknowledged  ;    and  then, 
there  is  not  so  much  danger  of  confounding  the  Persons  as  of 
dividing  the  Substance. 

After  all,  though  the  expression  of  our  Church  seems  de 
fensible,  and  justifiable,  yet  I  can  conceive  a  very  well-meaning 
and  a  thinking  man  to  say,  '  had  not  such  obscure  and  difficult  332 
expressions  better  be  avoided?'  I  should  answer,  'yes;'  but 
only  in  the  same  sense  in  which  I  should  say,  all  wars  and  all 
lawsuits  had  better  be  avoided ;  that  is,  without  meaning  to 
blame  every  prince  who  enters  into  war,  or  every  private  man 
who  engages  in  a  lawsuit.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  such 
expressions  as  we  are  apt  to  be  shocked  at,  or  discontented 
with,  have  been  adopted  only  in  the  way  of  defence  ;  and  it  is 
of  consequence  to  be  aware  of  this,  because  the  meaning  of 
expressions,  in  such  forms  as  Articles  of  Religion,  depends  upon 
the  occasions  on  which  they  were  made,  and  the  errors1  which 
they  were  intended  to  obviate. 

The  doctrine  of  eternal  generation  is  certainly  what  the 
mind  of  man  will  never  clearly  comprehend.  We  are  lost  if 
we  think  on  a  being  existing  from  eternity ;  yet  there  seems 
additional  difficulty  with  regard  to  an  event  (and  generation  is 
an  event)  happening  from  eternity,  or  having  happened  an 
infinite  time  ago.  If  any  one  chose  to  attempt  a  direct  or 
positive  solution  of  the  difficulty,  he  might  perhaps  say,  that 
the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God  may  not  perhaps  be  an  event, 
in  strictness,  though  in  some  respects  like  our  generation ;  or 
that  even  an  event,  such  as  a  communication  of  power,  &c., 
may  have  happened  so  that  it  may  be  represented  as  eternal 
to  us  ;  it  may  have  happened  before  any  time  assignable  by 
the  human  faculties ;  the  duration  between  that  and  the  In 
carnation  may  be  one,  to  which  any  duration  relating  to 
human  affairs  may  bear  no  proportion.  In  like  manner,  the 
direct  proofs,  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Fa 
ther,  just  now  urged  may  not  be  without  weight ;  yet  I  should 
prefer,  as  more  reasonable  and  just — as  entering  better  into 
the  minds  of  those  who  have  expressed  these  difficulties —  333 
a  negative2  solution  of  both.  I  should  therefore  say,  that  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  laying  down  the  doctrines  of  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  and  his  consubstantiality  with 

1  Book  III.  chap.  ix. 

2  Under  Art.  i.  sect.  10.    Sec  quotation  from  Ser.  de  Tempore. 


IV.  ii.  21.]  THU     SON     OF     GOD.  569 

II.  the  Father,  was,  because  no  other  method  could  prevent  the 
opinions  of  those  from  spreading,  who  gave  positive  repre 
sentations  of  his  nature,  which  the  Scriptures  did  not  seem 
to  warrant ;  who  declared,  that  he  was  a  creature,  that  a  pre 
cedence  might  be  made  out ;  or  that  the  Son  came  out  from 
the  Father,  as  something  is  cast  out  of  an  engine  (7r^o/3o\>))  ; 
or  was  separated  from  him,  as  a  part  is  from  the  whole ;  or 
had  no  being  before  he  was  man.  In  such  a  negative  way 
may  the  words  of  our  Nicene  Creed,  "God  of  God"  &c.  be 
understood. 

It  may  seem  strange,  that,  in  our  second  Article  of  1562, 
there  should  be  these  additional  expressions,  which  were  not 
in  the  former  Article  of  1552  ;  "  begotten  from  everlasting  of 
the  Father,  the  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father."  But  I  take  for  granted,  that  the  history  of  the 
growth  of  Socinianism,  during  those  ten  intervening  years, 
would  fully  account  for  the  addition,  which  perhaps  the  Pu 
ritan  interest  might  contribute  to  secure.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say,  that  the  growth  of  Socinianism  made  it  absolutely  neces 
sary  to  insert  these  words :  it  might,  or  might  not ;  but  I 
believe  that,  in  fact,  it  occasioned  the  insertion.  Religious 
men  are  sometimes  too  impatient  and  indignant ;  too  apt  to 
consider  attacks  on  their  own  opinions  as  attacks  on  the  Honour 
and  Majesty  of  the  Supreme  Being. 

But  it  is  one  thing  to  say,  that  possibly  expressions  might 
334  have  been  safely  omitted,  and  another  to  desire  to  eject  them 
because  they  contain  what  is  not  agreeable  to  reason*.  To 
do  this,  when  the  expressions  are  collected  from  Scripture 
by  a  comparison  of  different  passages,  is  to  run  into  several 
faults  and  errors.  It  is  to  run  into  the  fault  of  an  officious 
friend,  who  frustrates  all  your  good  plans  by  intermeddling, 
without  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  your  intentions : — it  is  pre 
sumption  ;  it  is  to  intrude  into  the  place  of  him  who  reveals 
knowledge,  instead  of  studying  what  revelation  truly  means  : 
— nay,  in  effect,  it  is  to  mislead  and  deceive  ;  for  the  chances 
against  a  man's  judging  right,  when  he  follows  his  own  acquired 
notions  about  what  it  is  fit  for  God  to  do,  are  infinite ;  and,  if 
once  it  is  resolved  to  support  one  false  opinion,  a  number  of 
other  false  opinions  are  propagated  as  arguments  to  support 
it.  Nay,  I  might  have  said,  that  the  person  who  does  this 
acts  insincerely;  for  he  pretends  that  lie  believes  that  to  be 

1  Sect.  1-1,  towards  end. 


570  ARTICLES    OF    EELIGION.          [IV.  H.  22 24. 

the  true  sense  of  words,  which  he  adopts  for  a  different  reason.  II. 
If  men  often  dealt  out  their  own  revelations  (as  we  might  call 
them)   in  this  manner,  we  should  have  Revelation  a  very  vari 
able  thing  :  it   would  vary  with  every  change  of  fashionable 
philosophy — it  would  veer  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine. 

Let  a  man  then,  if  he  pleases,  meditate  upon  the  incom 
prehensible  doctrines  of  religion  with  awful  diffidence,  and 
lowly  suspense  ;  but,  if  it  be  proper  for  the  good  of  religious 
society,  that  he  should  give  some  preference  of  one  opinion  to 
another,  let  him  not  presume  that  the  true  meaning  of  Revela 
tion  must  be  something  that  is  level  and  familiar  to  his  ordinary 
habitual  conceptions. 

But  let  us  return  to  the  original  Article,  and  proceed  with 
our  subordinate  propositions. 

22.  7«   Christ  "took  man's  nature" — was  a  real  human  335 
being,  in  soul  and  body : — "  of  a  reasonable  soul,  and  human 
flesh  subsisting :" — .Luke  ii.  40,  52  ;   Mark  xiii.  32.     He  had 
the  appetites  of  hunger  and  thirst,  Matt.  iv.  2  ;    John  xix.  28*: 
was  wearied,  John  iv.  6 :  he  wept,  Luke  xix.  41  ;   John  ix.  35  : 
this  implies  both  body  and  affections :  he  slept,  Mark  iv.  38. 
And,  as  a  reason  for  the  fact  must  confirm  the  fact,  take  Hebr. 

ii.  17,  18  ;   iv.  15;    v.  21. 

23.  8.   Our  Church  is  not  wrong  in  saying,  that  the  Per 
sonage  before  described  "  took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of 
the  blessed  Virgin."     The  thing  to  be  observed  here  is  only, 
that  Christ  began  to  be  an  human  being  before  he  was  born,  as 
other  human  creatures  begin  to  be.      If  he  had  not,  he  must 
not  have  been  at  Jirst  properly  human,  and   therefore  some 
change  would  have  been  announced  when  he  became  so.     To 
which   we  need  only  add,  that  we  have  plain  accounts  of  his 
conception    and   birth  :    Matt.    i.    18 — 23 ;   Luke   i.    26 — 38  ; 
ii.  5,  6.  His  conception  was  supernatural  ;  but  that  is  told  us 
plainly  ;   so  that  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  any  thing 
farther  was  out  of  the  course  of  nature. 

24.  9.    We    have   ground   to    say,  " of  her  substance" 
Here  we  may  mention   John  i.   14;   Gal.  iv.  4;   Rom.  ix.  5; 
Hebr.    ii.  14;   1  John    iv.  3.     But,  if  any  one   should   urge, 
that    these    passages    do    not     expressly    say,    "  of   her    sub 
stance,"  in  so  many  words,  I  should  answer,  that,  if  even  these 
passages  were  wanting,  we  might  conclude,  against  heretics, 

1  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  84;  where  the  humanity  of  Christ,  as  a  favourite 
point,  is  well  proved. 


IV.  ii.  25.]  THE   SON  OF  GOD.  571 

II.  that,  if  Christ  was  human,  and  began  to  be  so  from  his  con 
ception,  it  must  be  understood,  that  he  received  that  nutrition 

336  from  the  substance  of  his  mother  which  an  human  mother 
commonly  gives.  To  assert  the  contrary  would  be  arbitrary, 
and  without  foundation,  and  going  contrary  to  all  analogy  of 
nature.  In  all  reasoning  we  must  take  for  granted  that  effects 
are  produced  by  their  usual  causes.  In  order  therefore  to 
disprove  any  notion  that  Christ  merely  passed  through  the 
virgin's  womb,  we  need  only  prove,  that  he  was  very  man,  or 
really  man.  Phil.  ii.  7,  end,  would  be  sufficient. 

25.  10.  Amidst  the  difficulties,  which  arise  from  the  de 
scription  of  Christ,  the  best  language  we  can  use  is,  that  he 
had  two  natures  in  one  Person.  This  is  not  a  scriptural 
expression,  but  a  kind  of  classing  of  many  different  scriptural 
expressions,  or  a  reducing  of  them  into  a  small  compass.  Not 
that  it  would  have  been  used  merely  on  that  account.  It  was 
intended  to  keep  the  Church  clear  of  the  errors  of  Nestorius 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Eutyches  on  the  other  ;  though  every 
such  classing,  when  judiciously  made,  must  greatly  relieve  the 
mind,  labouring  amongst  a  number  of  texts  seemingly  incon 
sistent  ; — afraid  to  omit  any,  or  to  take  any  one  in  so  strong 
a  sense  as  to  encroach  upon  the  true  meaning  of  others.  Of 
one  person2  we  find  it  said  in  Scripture,  that  he  existed  before 
Abraham,  and  yet  that  he  was  the  seed  of  Abraham ;  that  he 
was  the  Lord  of  David,  and  yet  his  Son,  or  descendant ;  that 
"all  things  were  made  by  him,"  and  yet  that  he  was  "com 
passed  with  infirmity ;"  that  he  knoweth  all  things,  John  xxi. 
17;  that  all  the  world  must  stand  at  his  judgment-seat;  and 
yet  that  he  was  ignorant  when  his  judgment  would  take  place. 

337  How  can  we  express  these  seeming  inconsistencies  (which 
could  not  possibly  be  real  ones)  better  than  by  saying,  that  the 
divine  and  human  natures  were  joined  in  one  Person  ?  If  such 
an  expression  will  reconcile  all  expressions  of  Scripture,  and  no 
other  will,  our  Church  must  have  sufficient  warrant  for  using 
it.  But  we  have  already3  mentioned  this  expression  repeatedly. 
One  of  our  creeds  means  to  lay  down  something  equivalent  to 
it,  when  it  says,  that  Christ  is  one,  "  not  by  confusion  of  sub 
stance  (not  by  confounding  the  divine  and  human  natures,  or 
conceiving  them  to  be  melted*  down,  as  it  were,  into  one)  but 


2  See  John  viii.  58  ;  Matt.  i.  1 ;  Matt, 
xxii.  45;  John  i.  3.  or  Col.  1.  16; 
Hebr.  v.  2  ;  2  Cor.  v.  10;  Mark  xiii.  33. 


Art.i.  sect.  18.  Art.  ii.  sect.  8  and  I.' 


ei/oxris,  the  unconfound- 
ed  union,  is  mentioned  by  Photius,  in 
his  account  of  Theodoret's  2d  Dialogue. 
See  before,  sect.  Ii,  towards  beginning. 


572  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  26,  27« 

by  unity  of  Person"     Confounding  the  divine  and  human  na-  II. 
tures    would   bring  on  a  denial  of  either  the  Divinity  or  the 
humanity  of  Christ;   and  speaking  of  a  plurality  of  Persons, 
would  be  going  contrary  to  the  tenor  of  the  Scripture  language. 

26.  11.   The  divine  and  human  natures,  united  in  Christ, 
are  "  never  to  be  divided" — are  "  inseparabiliter  conjunctce" 
This  part  seems  little  attended  to  by  Commentators.     I  know 
not  whether  it  would  not  be  enough  for  the  words,  to  prove 
that  this  union  will  continue  as  long  as  we  have  beforehand  any 
distinct  views ; — but  there  is  not  occasion  to  mention  any  limi 
tations.     It  is  not  disputed  that  Christ  had  honours  and  dignity 
as  a  reward  T  for  his  obedience  in  his  human  condition :  it  is 
not  to  be  conceived  that  there  will  be  any  time  when  he  will  be 
deprived  of  these:  and  yet,   according  to  our  doctrine,   they 
must  be,  in  some  way,  attached  or  annexed  to  his  humanity ; 
for,  independently  of  that,  we  do  not  conceive  him  to  stand  in  338 
need  of  additional  glory,  or  to  admit  of  any.     Some  authority 

he  is  to  give 2  up ;  but  no  hint  is  given  of  any  division  to  take 
place  in  the  Person  of  Christ.  "  Blessing  and  honour,"  &c., 
are  to  be  given  both  "  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne, 
and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever3."  1  Tim.  ii.  5;  Acts 
iii.  21  ;  xvii.  31,  confirm  this. 

But,  if  it  seems  above  our  comprehension  to  know  how 
Christ,  being  Divine,  enjoys  additional  glory,  though  we  might 
urge,  that  Christ  as  the  Son  of  man  may  possibly  enjoy  glofy 
or  rewards  of  a  peculiar  kind,  answering  purposes  of  some  gra 
cious  dispensations,  perhaps  to  many  more  worlds  than  ours — 
yet  we  seem  to  be  on  firmer  ground,  when  we  use  the  words,  as 
before,  in  a  negative  sense,  as  excluding  the  notions  and  fancies 
mentioned  in  the  explanation ;  or  as  affirming  that  no  one  has 
a  right  to  hold  them  ;  and  put  it  upon  our  opponents  to  prove 
that  a  separation  will  take  place.  That  Christ,  considered  as 
man,  may  receive  additional  glory,  dating  the  account  from  his 
residence  on  earth,  is  perfectly  intelligible. 

27.  12.     Our  Church  is  right  in  insisting  upon  the  ex 
pression   "  one  Christ ,-""  but  enough  has  been  said  upon  this, 
under  the  tenth  of  these  subordinate  propositions,  and  in  the 
explanation. 

66  Very  God  and  very  man,"  has  already  occured,  in  other 
words. 

1   Phil.  ii.  il;  Ilcbr.  xii.  2;  ii.  0;    Ephcs.  i.  20,  &c. 
-  1  Cor.  xv.  24—28.  ;1  Rev.  v.  3. 


IV.  ii.  28 — 30.]  THE  SON  OF   GOD. 

II.  28.  13.  Lastly,  the  Article  takes  the  true  sense  of  Scrip 
ture,  when  it  considers  the  accounts  of  the  suffering,  cruci/i.r- 
ion,  death,  and  burial  of  Christ,  as  plain  narratives  of  facts. 
If  we  have  proved  that  Christ  had  a  real  human  body,  we  h;m 

339  in  effect  proved  all  the  rest;  for  no  one  ever  doubted  the  reality 
of  his  sufferings,  &c.,  who  did  not  doubt  the  reality  of  his  body. 

However,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  particularly  described 
by  the  Evangelists1,  and  referred  to  in  the  Epistles'*.  They 
are  finely  enumerated  and  represented  by  Bishop  Pearson. 

His  crucifixion  is  also  expressly  related,  and  alluded  to  f>. 
That  he  was  "  dead,"  is  not  only  related,  but  referred  to  as  a 
fact  unquestioned  :  illustrations  and  exhortations  are  founded 
upon  it.  See  Luke  xxiii.  46  ;  John  xix.  33  ;  Also  Horn.  v. 
7 — 10 ;  Rom.  vi.  4,  &c.  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  26,  &c. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  burial  of  Christ.  It  is  both 
related  with  many  circumstances,  and  made  the  ground  of  spiri 
tual  advice  and  persuasion.  See  the  close  of  any  of  the  Gos 
pels; — and  Rom.  vi.  4;  Col.  ii.  12 7. 

If  any  one  was  to  suggest  that  Christ  might  not  suffer,  &c., 
though  he  appeared  to  do  so,  I  would  answer,  that  there  is  no 
reasoning  against  such  an  arbitrary  supposition.  To  suppose 
that  common  phenomena  are  not  to  be  solved  by  ascribing  them 
to  their  established 8  causes,  is  to  take  away  all  power  of  con 
cluding  any  thing  from  experience.  It  is  like  saying  there  is 
no  matter,  when  all  the  properties  of  matter  are  observed. 
Such  an  hypothesis  makes  no  difference :  every  thing  must  go 
on  in  the  same  train,  whether  it  is  admitted  or  not.  Indeed, 
none  but  the  enemies  of  matter  ever  denied  that  the  Body  of 

340  Christ  was  material.      Not  that  they  denied  the  existence  of 
matter ;   they  only  held  it  in  abomination,  as  the  source  of  evil. 

29.  What  relates  to  Atonement,  or  implies  original  Sin,  is 
deferred,  as  before. 

30.  Thus  have  we  gone  through  the  direct  proofs  of  all 
the  propositions  contained  in  our  Article.      But  still  a  great 
quantity  of  argument  remains  ;  I  mean,  the  answering  of  objec 
tions.    These  are  innumerable.     Not  one  of  the  texts,  of  which 
we  have  given  an  interpretation,  but  has  had  different  construc 
tions  put  upon  it  by  our  adversaries ;  and,  though  these  con- 


4  Matt.  xxvi.  and  parallels. 

5  Hebr.  v.  7,  8.     6  Gal.  v.  24,  (or  11.) 
7  It  might  have  been  said,  in  short, 

that  all  four  (suffering,  crucifixion,  death, 


and  burial )  are  related  and  alluded  to — 
as  some   passages  allude  to  more   than 


one. 


8  As  was  observed  before,  sect.  -_M. 


574  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ti.  31. 

structions  appear  to  me  forced,  inadmissible,  what  such  able  II. 
men  as  those  who  have  made  them  could  not  have  run  into 
without  a  design  of  obviating  difficulties,  yet  others  may  think 
differently.  The  question  is,  what  course  to  take.  Answering 
objections  is  certainly  a  part  of  proof;  and,  as  we  blame  our 
adversaries  for  using  arguments  already  answered,  so  may  they 
blame  us  if  we  pass  by  their  reasonings  without  notice  ;  espe 
cially  if  we  neglect  what  they  may  call  improvements.  And 
yet  to  answer  all  objections,  in  the  present  case,  should  be  a 
separate  undertaking ;  not  only  on  account  of  their  number, 
but  because,  in  many  of  them,  truth  and  error  are  got  so  entan 
gled,  that  they  cannot  be  disentangled  in  a  little  time.  We 
must  therefore  hit  upon  some  middle  way. 

The  best  medium  seems  to  be,  to  give  up  the  idea  of  answer 
ing  single  objections,  and  only  lay  down  a  few  general  rules  or 
observations,  each  of  which  may  be  applied  on  more  occasions 
than  one.  It  will  be  found  then  that  several  objections  may  be 
solved,  by  attending  to  the  following  things : 

31.  1.  By  attending  to  the  three  several  conditions  in 
which  Christ  is  mentioned.  One,  in  which  he  existed  before  he 
assumed  man's  nature,  in  which  he  is  spoken  of  as  equal  to  the  341 
Father,  though  some  kind  of  communication  or  generation  had 
taken  place,  from  unbounded  time,  which  we  can  only  confess, 
not  understand :  a  second,  in  which  Christ  was  a  partaker  of 
human  nature  and  lived  upon  earth :  a  third,  in  which  he  is 
said  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high,  invested 
with  dignity  as  Head  of  the  Church,  or  general  Society  of  those 
who  worship  God  under  the  Christian  dispensation;  interceding 
for  sincere  believers,  and  looking  forward  to  the  time  when  he 
will  pass  judgment  upon  them. 

It  is  not  likely  that  these  three  conditions  should  be  all 
mentioned,  whenever  one  of  them  is ;  nor  that  it  should  be  ex 
pressly  declared  to  which  of  them  any  account  of  Christ  belongs, 
which  is  introduced  incidentally,  as  it  were,  in  the  course  of  an 
easy  and  artless  letter,  or  exhortation.  This  is  to  be  discovered 
from  the  context — from  the  occasion  on  which  such  account 
is  introduced.  We  should  always  keep  them  all  in  mind,  and 
let  circumstances  determine  of  which  we  should  understand  any 
particular  saying.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians1 ,  Christ 
is  set  forth  as  an  example  of  condescension:  the  very  idea  takes 
in  an  higher  and  a  lower  state ;  and  the  reward  points  out  a 

1  Phil.  ii.  "»_1 1 . 


IV.  ii.  31.] 


THE     SON    OF    GOD. 


575 


II.  third,  which  must  be  more  exalted  than  the  second.  In  the 
first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians2,  the  intention 
might  probably  be,  to  give  the  converts  high  ideas  of  the  Son 
of  God,  in  comparison  of  those  ceons,  to  which  many  of  them 
ascribed  the  creation  of  the  world,  and,  I  believe,  continued  su 
perintendence  over  their  favourites.  Here,  the  humiliation  of 
Christ  would  be  less  to  the  purpose  than  his  first  condition, 

342  when  "  all  things  were  made  by  him,"  and  his  last,  when  he 
protected  the  Saints ; — though  his  suffering  was  not  to  be 
wholly  omitted. 

The  opening  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  or  Jews,  was 
probably  meant  to  obviate  the  low  notions  which  the  Ebionites 
entertained  of  the  character  of  Christ ;  in  which  case  the  digni 
ties  belonging  to  the  first  state  naturally  came  to  be  mentioned: 

the  second  state  must  be  mentioned  at  least  as  a  connecting 

& 

link,  and  the  third  subjoined.  The  third  is  not,  probably, 
very  unlike  the  first  (John  xvii.  5)  in  our  conceptions;  and 
what  difference  there  is  was  not  to  be  marked  out  here.  To 
the  first  state  belong,  "  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him" 
(Heb.  i.  6)  :  to  the  second,  "  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels:"  and,  "for  the  suffering  of  death" — "crowned 
him  with  glory  and  honour"  (Heb.  ii.  9),  to  the  third.  John 
xiv.  28,  Christ  is  speaking  as  being  in  the  form  of  man,  and 
as  going  to  quit  this  world ;  he  is  therefore  in  his  second  state, 
and  what  he  says  is  suitable  to  our  notions — "  my  Father  is 
greater  than  I."  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  seems  intended 
to  induce  the  Jews  to  admit  other  men  into  religious  society 
besides  those  who  had  lived  under  the  law  of  Moses :  and 
therefore  what  is  said  of  Christ,  in  the  first  chapter  of  that 
Epistle,  commences3  from  his  resurrection,  and  relates  wholly 
to  his  third  state  or  condition. 

Now,  many  objections  to  our  doctrines  concerning  the  dig 
nity  of  Christ  may  be  solved  by  attending  to  the  difference  of 
these  three  states ;  as  our  adversaries  make  their  arguments 
against  us  by  confounding  them  together,  and  taking  what  is 
34,3  said  of  one  as  if  it  belonged  to  another.  Dr.  Priestley  makes 
"being  in  the/orwi4  of  God,"  to  belong  to  Christ  after  he  had 
been  on  earth  :  and  describes  his  power  in  his  third  state,  as  if 
it  was  all  the  kind  of  power  he  ever  had.  He  also  makes  the 


2  Col.  i.  16—20. 

3  Ephes.  i.  20,  &c.  to  the  end. 

4  Phil.  ii.  6.     Familiar  Illustr.  pp.  23, 


46:  the  latter  is  from  1  Pet.  i.  20,  21, 
which  gives  hints  of  all  three  states.  See 
also  Priestley's  Letters,  p.  119. 


576  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  32. 

glories  ascribed  to  Christ,  Heb.  i.  10,  to  have  been  conferred  on  II. 
him  in  consequence  of  his  suffering ]  ;  though  the  sixth  verse 
mentions  bringing  him  into  the  world.  An  hint  has  been  al 
ready  2  given  of  something  like  this  rule,  with  relation  to  John 
xvii.  ;  but  he  who  would  see  these  three  conditions  described  in 
a  masterly  manner,  must  read  Bishop  SherlocWs  first  discourse 
in  his  fourth  volume — in  four  parts. 

32.  2.  Objections  may  be  answered,  by  attending  to  the 
two  characters  or  natures  of  Christ,  divine  and  human.  The 
meaning  of  these  has  been  sufficiently  explained.  But,  though 
our  adversaries  will  agree,  no  doubt,  to  reconcile  Christ's  being 
called  a  Lion,  with  his  being  called  a  Lamb;  and,  though  they 
would  not  object  to  uniting  all  the  characters  of  a  suffering  and 
a  triumphant  Messiah  in  the  person  of  Jesus :i ;  yet  they  are 
not  willing,  in  like  manner,  that  we  should  unite  the  marks  of 
Godhead  and  manhood  in  the  person  of  one  Christ.  I  confess 
I  do  not  understand  how  the  divine  and  human  natures  are 
joined  in  him  ;  but  yet  the  mode  of  expression  seems  necessary 
(as  before  mentioned)  to  collect  into  one  agent  all  the  acts  and 
qualities  ascribed  to  Christ.  Socinus  declares  against  this — 
as  any  one  may  be  apt  to  do  who  denies  the  divinity  of  Christ 
— for  his  divinity  is  pre-supposed ;  and  Dr.  Priestley  (Letter  5.  344 
to  Students,  p.  80,  81)  says  things  against  it  something  like 
what  I  have  said  in  sect.  8,  in  the  character  of  Nestorius.  But 
no  one  should  say  any  thing  upon  it  who  does  not  previously 
acknowledge  the  divinity  of  Christ.  It  concerns  only  our  method 
of  classing  texts;  which,  supposing  some  of  them  to  express  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  seem  contradictory,  by  sometimes  making 
him  God,  sometimes  man.  Till  any  one  thinks  that  there  are 
some  texts  which  represent  Christ  as  divine,  he  has  no  concern 
with  our  method  of  classing — or  settling  a  seeming  inconsis 
tency,  which  he  does  not  allow  to  exist.  This  remark  may 
possibly  preclude  some  dispute. 

The  form  of  the  objections,  which  I  am  now  speaking  of,  is 
this :  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  mere  man,  as  inferior 
to  the  Father,  and  so  on  ;  therefore  he  cannot  be  equal  to  the 
Father.  Our  answer  is,  we  acknowledge  Christ  to  be  human, 
and  inferior  to  the  Father  as  much  as  you  can  ;  but  besides 
those  passages,  which  you  allege  in  order  to  prove  him  man, 
there  are  others  which  seem  to  us  to  speak  him  divine.  Dr. 

1  Illustr.  p.  35.          2  Art.  i.  sect.  17.      i   works,  and  making  one  doctrine  out  of 
3  Reconciling  passages  about  faith  and       them,  is  a  process  of  the  same  nature. 


IV.  ii.  32.]  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

II.  Priestley  seems  to  argue  in  this  manner',  from  John  v.,  where 
he  says,  "  that  the  honour  to  which  Christ  is  entitled  is"  (Jk.c.) 
"  on  account  of  what  he  derives  from  God,  as  his  ambassador" 
No  doubt,  his  being  the  sent  of  God  is  one  reason  for  his  being 
honoured.  To  argue  from  human  qualities  of  Christ  against 
divine  ones,  would  be  the  same  as  to  argue  from  marks  of  a 
suffering  Messiah  against  his  being  triumphant ;  or  to  infer, 
from  Christ's  divine  qualities,  that  he  was  not  human.  To 

345  prove  that  we  are  inconsistent  is  nothing  in  this  case ;   we  own 
that  we  cannot  reconcile  Christ's  divine  qualities  with  his  human. 
Suppose,  on  a  law  trial,  that  the  evidence  of  Marcus  seemed 
inconsistent  with  that  of  Quintus,  that  these  witnesses  were  men 
of  equally  good  character,  but  that  the  judges  had  made  out 
the  best  decision  in  their  power ;  what  would  be  thought  of  a 
man  who  dwelt  upon  the  evidence  of  Quintus  as  certain  ?  and 
insisted  that  the  evidence  of  Marcus  must  be  false,  because  it 
contradicted  that  of  Quintus,  as  Quintus  was  a  man  of  good 
character :   would  this  be  entering  into  the  difficulty  ?   would 
not  there  be  the  same  ground  for  arguing  that  Quintus1  s  evidence 
was  false,  because  it  contradicted  that  of  Marcus  ?  would  such 
arguing  prove  any  thing  wrong  in  the  judges  ? 

The  text  before  mentioned,  Mark  xiii.  32,  having  always 
appeared  to  me  the  most  difficult  of  any  of  those  quoted 
in  the  Socinian  controversy,  I  am  inclined  here  to  take  some 
notice  of  it.  This  text  may  be  considered  in  two  lights, 
as  the  word  u  Son"  is  understood  to  mean  Christ  as  superior 
to  the  angels  (Heb.  i),  or  as  mere  man.  His  being  men 
tioned,  in  rising  to  the  Father,  after  the  angels,  makes  some 
(as  Macknight)  conceive  him  here  in  a  rank  higher  than  the 
angels ;  his  being  said  to  be  ignorant,  makes  him  seem  mere 
man.  Now,  in  the  former  sense,  as  above  angels,  the  passage 
may  afford  an  argument  against  the  divinity  of  Christ;  and  in 
the  latter  sense,  the  difficulty  is  to  conceive  how  one  person 
could,  at  the  same  time,  know  and  be  ignorant  of  the  same 
event.  If  Christ  had  the  divine  nature  joined  with  the 
human,  he  knew  all5  things;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  did 
not  know  the  day  of  judgment.  Taking  the  text  in  the 

346  first  light,   one   might  say,   First,   supposing  one  text   inex 

plicable,  that  does  not  seem  a  sufficient  reason  for  giving  up  a 
doctrine   built  on  many  others.      The    text  might  be  left  in 

4  Familiar  Illustr.  p.  25,  top.    See  also   I  "How   could  he  be"  "our  brother,   if 
Letters,  p.  71.     1  Tim.  ii.  5,  p.  144.    I  he  was  our  Maker  ?"      5  John  xxi.  17. 

VOL.  I.  37 


578  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  U.  32. 

suspense.  2.  Macknight  understands  the  verse  to  mean,  that  II. 
the  Son  of  God  was  not  to  make  known  the  time  of  his 
coming  to  judgment;  but  by  uncertainty  was  to  keep  up  the 
vigilance  of  his  disciples — on  the  principle,  "  watch,  for  ye 
know  not"  &c.  3.  The  style  is  prophetic;  and  probably 
the  passage  has  a  double  sense ;  which  puts  it  upon  a  different 
footing  from  other  descriptions  of  Christ.  4.  It  may  mean  to 
describe  'the  office  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  ambassador  from 
heaven  to  earth,  who  might  not  in  that  office  have  the  fixing 
of  the  day  of  judgment  in  his  department.  But  the  text  may 
be  taken  in  the  second  light,  as  speaking  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
notwithstanding  his  being  mentioned  between  the  angels  and 
the  Father.  Had  the  gradation  been,  « man,  the  Son,  angels, 
the  Father,'  it  would  have  been  much  more  harsh  and  un 
couth  than  as  it  is  now — 'man,  angels,  Son,  Father;'  nay, 
it  is  scarcely  conceivable,  that  an  artless  writer,  who  had 
a  good  ear,  would  not  prefer  the  second  series  to  the  first, 
except  falsehood  was  clearly  declared  by  it.  But,  when  we 
consider,  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  not  always 
mentioned  in  the  same  order,  in  different  passages,  we  must 
not  lay  very  great  stress  upon  order  in  the  present  case; 
especially  when  we  consider  that  the  Son  must  be  in  some 
respects  higher,  though  in  others  "lower  than  the  angels'" — 
and  that  here  Christ  is  not  spoken  of  in  his  pre-existent  state. 
The  Socinians  will  allow  "  the  Son"  to  mean  here  the  Son 
of  Man,  though  a  good  part  of  our  difficulty  arises  from 
there  being  this  gradation — "no  man,"  (t  not  the  Angels" — 
"neither  the  Son" — "but  the  Father:" — man,  angels,  Son, 
Father.  Let  us  then  suppose  "  the  Son"  to  mean  here  the  347 
Son  in  his  human  nature ;  our  observation,  founded  on  this 
supposition,  may  be  of  general  use.  We  cannot  conceive  how 
the  same  person  can  know  as  God,  and  yet  be  ignorant 
as  man  ?  I  apprehend  it  might  be  sufficient  to  observe  here, 
that  there  is  the  same  difficulty  in  conceiving  how  the  same 
person  can  be  strong  and  weak ;  have  dominion  over  the 
elements,  and  yet  be1  wearied  with  a  walk;  for  this  would 
put  us  on  seeing,  that  the  hypostatical  union  is,  what  it 
might  be  expected  to  be,  totally  above  our  comprehension ; 
and  therefore,  that  we  cannot  reason  about  it.  When  we 
presume  to  think  and  perplex  ourselves  about  any  part  of  it, 
we  deceive  ourselves,  by  fancying  that,  because  we  have  an 

1  John  iv.  6. 


IV.  ii.  33.] 


THE    SON    OF     GOD. 


579 


II.  expression,   we  have  some  sort  of  idea :  but  we  should  never 
fancy  this,  if  we  did   not  forget  how  it  was  that  we  arrived 
at  that  expression.     We  find  different  qualities,  some  divine 
some    human,  predicated   of  the    same  person;    we   want    to 
express  this  briefly,  in  order  to  relieve  the  mind,  and  preserve 
unity  of  doctrine:  we  get  a  mode   of  speaking2,   but   that 
is  all :  we  cannot  stir  a  step  farther.      If  we  kept  this  process 
n  mind,  we  should  never  expect  to  solve  any  such  question  as 
the   present;   therefore  it    would  never  give  us  any  pain   or 
perplexity :   we  should  aim  at  nothing  but  noting  accurately 
and  recording  faithfully.     This  seems  the  true  answer  to  the 
Nestoman3  difficulties,  and  to  Dr.  Priestley's4. 

When  we  reason  in  mathematics,  or  in  any  subject  which 
348  we  really  comprehend,  if  we  arrive  at  some  proposition,  we 
can  go  on  from  it  as  an  axiom ;  but  when,  as  in  the  present 
case,  we  arrive  only  at  a  verbal  proposition,  though  it  may  be 
very  useful,  we  cannot  proceed  any  farther.  This  thought 
ought  to  cut  short  our  arguing  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
as  well  as  on  that  of  the  Incarnation.  For  in  neither  do  we 
do  more  than  collect  various  texts  of  Scripture,  and  arrange 

them,  so  as  to  ease  the  mind,  and  ward  off  error so  as  to 

promote,  or  not  obstruct,  religious  sentiments.  So  that 
Mark  xiii.  32  does  not  contain  a  peculiar  difficulty  :  every 
particular  union  of  qualities  divine  and  human,  which  have 
any  correspondence,  contains  the  same. 

33.  3.  We  may,  not  unfrequently,  solve  objections, 
by  attending  to  the  difference  between  the  Deity  of  natural 
religion,  and  a  divine  person  of  the  Holy  Trinity*.  We 
may  give  the  form  of  these  objections,  and  an  instance  at 
the  same  time.  Dr.  Priestley6  says,  with  regard  to  John  xvii 
3,  «  How  can  the  Father  be  the  only  true  God,  if  the  Son 


2  Something  like  this  has  been  said 
before  (see  Art.  i.  sect.  18) ;  yet  the  idea 
was  not  precisely  that  of  getting  up  to 
what  would  be  called  a  doctrine,  and 
being  unable  to  proceed  upon  it  as  a 
principle. 

3  Sect.  8.  4  Letters,  p.  81. 

5  This  paragraph  might  be  better  put. 
The  substance  is  this :— sometimes  the 
word  God  means  God  in  general,  some 
times  a  person  in  the  Holy  Trinity ;  and 
sometimes  the  word  Father  likewise  sig 
nifies  God  in  general,  sometimes  a  person 


in  the  Trinity.  We  have  then  four  pro 
positions,  all  proved  or  illustrated  here, 
or  under  the  first  Article ;  but  the  proofs 
might  be  better  arranged.  In  which 
sense  God,  or  Father,  is  to  be  taken,  at 
any  time,  must  depend  on  context  and 
circumstances.  God  in  general  will  be 
always  in  some  way  plainly  or  tacitly 
opposed  or  contra(ii.stin<iuixhed  to  idols  • 
a  Person  of  the  Trinity  will  always  be 
contradistinguished  to  other  Persons  of 
the  Trinity. 
8  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  33. 

37—2 


580  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  11.  34,  35. 

be  true  God  also?"  Here,  "the  only  true  God"  is  opposed  II. 
to  false  gods,  and  means  the  Deity  in  natural  religion :  the 
Divinity  of  the  Son  is,  according  to  our  doctrine,  entirely 
consistent  with  the  Unity  of  the  Supreme  Being.  That 
unity  is  a  part  of  our  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  It  may 
indeed  seem  at  first,  that,  if  Christ  prays  to  the  Father,  349 
he  must  mean  a  person  of  the  Trinity;  and  therefore,  if 
the  Father  be  the  only  true  God,  another  person  of  the 
Trinity  cannot  be  God.  But  yet  I  think  we  have  before1 
shewn,  that  Christ,  as  the  sent,  or  the  ambassador  of  God, 
may  call  God  his  Father,  meaning  God  in  general,  as  it 
were,  and  not  a  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  A  prince 
calls  his  father  sometimes  his  king,  sometimes  his  father2 ; 
and  if,  as  in  the  first  Article  (section  1?.),  one  of  a  trium 
virate  went  on  an  embassy,  having  himself  a  share  in  the 
government,  his  despatches  might,  if  any  one  pleased,  be 
said  to  be  directed  to3  himself.  And  the  same,  if  any  one 
of  a  commercial  partnership  travelled  abroad  as  agent,  and 
sent  home  accounts  of  his  negotiations.  There  are  some 
times  stories  of  a  king's  son  being  a  servant:  he  would 
always  have  royalty;  he  would  rule  (in  right  and  justice)  as 
a  prince,  and  serve  as  a  servant. 

1  Cor.  xi — "  The  head  of  Christ  is  God"  Certainly  no 
member  of  the  Church  of  England  conceives  that  the  Deity 
is  not  superior  to  the  Messiah  as  such — or  to  Christ  con 
sidered  as  the  Head  of  the  Church,  or  "  the  Head  of  every 
man." 

34.  4.    Objections  may   sometimes  be   answered   by  ex 
amining   quotations  made  from    Scripture  to   support  them  ; 
and   seeing,   whether    they   are   complete,  or  partial.     Thus, 
when  Dr.  Priestley  quotes  Phil.  ii.  8 — 11%  we  say,  the  quo 
tation  is  incomplete,  as  leaving  out   the    account  of  Christ's 
pre-existent   state.     He  ought   to  have  begun  with   the   5th 
verse.      As  incomplete  quotations  are  frequent  in  controversy, 
it  should  be  a  general  rule  always  to  read  what  comes  im 
mediately  before  and  after  any  passage  that  is  quoted.      Not 
that    all  partial   quotations   must  be  deemed  to  be  made  so  350 
purposely. 

35.  5.    Objections  may  often  be  solved,  by  attention  to 
that   imperfection   of   language    which   consists    in   the   same 


Art.  i.  sect.  17- 

John  xx.  17.    2  Cor.  xi.  31. 


3  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters,  p.  83. 

4  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  45,  bottom. 


IV.  ii.  35.]  THE    SON    OF    GOD.  581 


II.  word  being  the  sign  for  several  different  ideas.  The  general 
form  of  such  objections  is  this — fian  expression  has  sometimes 
this  meaning,  therefore  it  can  never  have  that?  As  if  a 
man  were  to  say,  '  momentum  signifies  sometimes  a  small 
portion  of  time,  therefore  it  can  never  signify  force?  This 
is  not  said  quite  plainly;  only  you  see,  by  the  conclusion, 
that  it  is  implied  or  insinuated.  The  kind  of  argument  is 
not  wholly  wrong,  but  it  is  not  wholly  right  :  for  an  ex 
pression  may  mean  one  thing  in  one  case,  and  another  thing 
in  another  case ;  and  the  meaning  is  to  be  determined,  in 
each  case,  by  circumstances,  and  legitimate  interpretation. 
But,  when  a  mind  is  on  the  stretch,  anxious,  scrupulous, 
feeble;  and  has  been  used  to  affix  a  certain  sense  to  an  ex 
pression  ;  this  kind  of  argument,  which  proposes  another 
sense,  and  supports  it  by  instances,  gives  a  shock,  un 
hinges,  unsettles;  and  therefore  its  effects  ought  to  be  ob 
viated. 

It  is  said,  that  we  take  the  expression  the  Son  of  God 
in  too  high  a  sense;  men5  are  the  sons  of  God;  &c.  No 
doubt,  God  is  the  common  Parent  of  mankind,  and  Christians 
are  his  adopted  sons,  as  opposed  to  those  who  laboured  under 

bondage  to  the  elements  of  the  world  (Gal.  ii.  4 iv.  3,  9,  25); 

and  as  they  will  inherit  eternal  life,  it  is  a  fair  topic  of  holy 
eloquence  to  say,  that  they  are  "  heirs  of  God,"  and  therefore 
"joint-heirs6  with  Christ."  But  may  not  the  first-begotten, 
whom  all  the  angels  were  to  worship,  be  Son  in  an  higher 
sense  ?  if  not,  how  is  he  the  ow/?/-begotten  ?  But,  instead 
351  of  criticising  on  words,  we  will  bring  the  testimony  of  the 
Jews,  who  understood  the  force  of  the  language  used,  and  the 
Mosaic  Law.  "  The  Jews  sought  to  kill"  our  Saviour, 
because  he  said  "  that  God  was  his  Father,  making  himself 
equal"  with  God." 

It  is  said,  that  eya>  et/tu  means  nothing  more  than  e  I  am 
he,'  and  is  so  translated,  except  in  the  contested  place,  John 
viii.  58s.  Here,  the  shortest  way  would  be  to  call  in  the  same 
interpreters,  the  Jews :  they  took  up  stones  to  punish  Christ 
for  blasphemy  according  to  their  law.  That9  eyu>  CIJULI  might 
be  translated  here  so  as  to  exhibit  an  uncommon  expression,  is 
plain  enough,  because  the  passage,  quoted  as  it  were  from  the 
book  of  Exodus,  was  uncommonly  expressed.  And,  supposing 

5  John  iii.  2.  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  23.         I       «  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  41. 

6  Rom.  viii.  17.  1  John  v.  18.       I       9  Sect.  16,  before. 


582  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  11.  36. 

we  were  to  adopt  "  I  am  he,"  instead  of  "  /  aw,"  the  confu-  II. 
sion  of  tenses  remains — "  before  Abraham  was,  I  am  he."  The 
meaning,  we  are  told,  is,  '  before  Abraham  was,  I  was  intended, 
fixed  upon  in  the  Divine  counsels,  as  the  Messiah.1  The  pro 
bability  of  our  Saviour's  expressing  such  a  thought  by  such 
words,  shall  be  left  to  every  one's  private  judgment. 

We  say,  that  eTrt/caXeoyucu  signifies  to  invoke  ;  but  we  are 
told,  in  answer,  that  it  signifies  to  surname1.  Why  may  it  not 
signify  both  one  and  the  other  ?  and  also  to  appeal  ?  There 
seems  good  reason  to  think  that  the  LXX.  often  used  it  to 
imply  invocation;  and  therefore  the  Jews  would  be  accustomed 

to  it  in  that  sense.   I  refer  to  Parkhurst's  Lexicon Creation* 

sometimes  is  used  in  a  comparative  or  metaphorical  sense ; 
may  it  not  therefore  be  sometimes  used  in  a  plain  and  proper 
sense,  even  with  regard  to  the  Son  of  God  ?  That  it  should 
be  understood  figuratively  in  Col.  i.  16,  seems3  strange  to  me.  352 
It  appears  to  me,  that  it  would  not  have  been  so  interpreted, 
if  any  other  way  of  denying  Christ's  pre-existent  state  could 
possibly  have  been  invented.  Bishop  Pearson  has  replied  to 
this  interpretation,  in  his  masterly  manner,  long  ago4:  but  it  is 
urged  again  and  again. 

36.  6.  As  the  force  of  objections  often  depends  upon 
authorities,  and  the  credit  of  witnesses,  we  may  not  unfre- 
quently  obviate  them  by  attending  to  the  particular  situations 
and  views  of  those  witnesses.  Such  attention  will  sometimes 
enable  us  to  confirm  an  evidence  which  is  reckoned  weak — 
weaker  than  it  really  is ;  sometimes  to  overturn  one,  which  is 
accounted  stronger  than  it  really  is:  in  both  ways  obviating 
that  prejudice  by  which  men  are  led  into  error. 

If,  in  an  objection,  the  Fathers  are  spoken  of  as  credulous, 
attention  to  circumstances  will  enable  us  to  confirm  their  evi 
dence,  by  shewing  that  Pliny  and  Plutarch  were5  equally  weak ; 
and  therefore,  that  the  charge  falls  on  the  age,  without  affect 
ing  the  character  of  the  persons ;  who  therefore  may  be  deemed 
credible  witnesses  in  all  things  not  connected  with  the  vulgar 
errors  of  the  times.  If  it  is  said,  that  the  Jews  were  unpolished 
and  ignorant,  we  can  ask,  were  they  ignorant  of  those  laws 
against  blasphemy6  which  they  themselves  executed  ?  or  were 


1  Illustr.  p.  40. 

2  Famil.  37.  3. 

3  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  44.  See  Dr.  Priest 
ley's  iifth  Letter  to  Dr.  Price,  p.  120. 


4  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  p.  227,  first 
edit.,  or  p.  114,  fol. 

5  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  16. 

6  John  viii.  58 ;  v.  18. 


IV.  ii.  37.]  THE  SON  OF  GOD.  583 

II.  they,  in  general,  more  ignorant  in  matters  of  religion  than 
353  idolaters?  Oneirocritics  are  folly,  but  do  they  not  shew  us 
the  language7  of  symbols?  Most  men  are  weak  in  some  things; 
but  were  those,  who  attest  any  thing,  weak  in  the  principal 
matter  ?  A  doctrine  is  confirmed  by  a  writing ;  it  is  objected 
that  that  writing  is  spurious :  what  then  ?  did  not  many 
ancients  put  the  names  of  famous  authors  to  their  works  rather 
than  their  own  names  ?  and  that  with  a  good8  intention  ? 

Attention  to  circumstances  and  views  will  sometimes  enable 
us  to  overturn  an  authority,  which  seems  stronger  than  it 
ought.  Sir  Isaac  Newton*  has  proved  that  such  a  text  of 
such  a  MS.  has  been  corrupted.  Which  way  did  the  preju 
dices  of  that  great  man  (mentioned  by  our  adversaries,  because 
he  was  a  great  man)  particularly  incline  him  ?  Hume  was 
indeed  a  philosopher,  but  an  infidel:  Whiston  had  studied 
church  history,  and  read  the  Scriptures,  but  his  Apollinarian 
hypothesis  drew  every  thing  into  its  vortex. 

37.  7.  Lastly,  we  may  often  solve  objections  by  substi 
tuting  the  interpretation  instead  of  the  words  interpreted.  We 
have  already  asked,  what  could  induce  St.  John  to  say,  that  the 
power  and  wisdom  of  God  were  with  God  in  the  beginning10. 
Socinus  himself,  as  I  remember,  makes  the  Word  to  mean  the 
mandate  of  God.  An  academic  might  say,  in  the  same  way, 
the  king's  mandate  is  the  same  as  the  king ;  a  degree  by  man 
date  is  a  degree  by  the  king;  but  would  he  say,  In  the  begin 
ning  (before  mandate-degrees  began  to  be  taken)  was  the 
mandate,  and  the  mandate  was  with  the  king,  and  the  mandate 
was  the  king :  the  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  the  king  ? 
354,  Would  he,  particularly,  say  this  in  the  opening  of  an  history  ? 

We  have  an  instance  of  the  effect  of  substitution  in  the 
Short  Defence,  See.,  recommended  before,  in  which  the  Socinian 
interpretation  of  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  is  put  instead  of  the  text11. 
Let  us  try  its  effect  now,  while  we  are  suggesting  this  caution. 

These  are  all  the  rules  or  observations  on  the  controversy 
concerning  the  Son  of  God,  with  which  I  shall  trouble  you. 
In  several  arguments,  our  adversaries  prove  what  we  hold  as 
well  as  they ;  (see  Short  Defence,  p.  29,  and  note,)  which  is 
sometimes  an  insinuation  that  we  do  not  hold  what  they  prove ; 
and,  when  it  is  so,  it  is  a  misrepresentation,  and  an  unfair- 

7  Book  I.  chap.  xvii.  I       9  Famil.  Illustr.  p.  38,  twice. 

8  Lardner's  Works,    vol.  n.  p.  310.    |      10  Sect.  17. 

Of  this,  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  4.  n  Short  Defence,  p;  32. 


584  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  U.  38,  SQ. 

ness  and  injustice  to  us.  They  prove  what  we  call  the  third  II. 
condition  or  state  of  Christ  (Lard.  vol.  xi.  p.  91) ;  they  prove 
that  Christ  is  inferior  to  the  Father  ;  that  the  Unity  of  God  is 
maintained  through  the  Scripture  (Lard.  vol.  x.  p.  619,  &c.) ; 
that  creation  does  not  always  mean  literal  creation ;  that 
Christ's  being  wearied  is  not  reconcileable,  in  our  minds,  with 
his  creating  all  worlds.  All  these  things  we  are  far  from  deny 
ing  :  to  prove  them,  in  controversy  with  us,  is  to  misrepresent 
us.  Nor  must  they  say,  that  we  cannot  hold  these  things, 
because  they  are  inconsistent  with  our  other  tenets.  We  must 
not  be  charged  with  any  consequences  of  our  doctrines,  except 
those  which  we  ourselves  acknowledge.  We  may  speak  fool 
ishly,  or  inconsistently ;  but  what  we  profess  to  hold  we  should 
be  allowed  to  hold.  I  could  have  wished  to  say  something  on 
1  Tim.  iii.  16;  but  it  would  lead  us  into  discussions  too  like 
those  on  1  John  v.  7 :  and  what  observations  I  had  to  make  I 
made  in  reading  to  you  Bishop  Pearson's  note  upon  it.  Dr. 
Priestley  seems  to  refer1  to  the  Alexandrian  MS.  when  he 
speaks  of  it :  I  produced  Dr.  Woide's  fac-simile,  and  gave  my 
opinion  on  the  modern  appearance  of  the  word  0eos.  Bishop  .355 
Hurd  has  a  sermon  on  the  verse;  and  Mr.  John  Berriman  has 
published  an  octavo  volume  upon  it,  which  seems  to  contain 
much  useful  instruction  to  the  critical  divine. 

38.  Having  now  finished  the  proof  of  our  Article,  we  come 
to  what  we  have  called  the  Application,  which  will  consist  of 
the  same  parts  as  before. 

39.  We  are  first  to  consider,  in  what  sense  a  thinking  man 
would  now  assent  to  this  second  Article.     Let  us  conceive  such 
an  one  meditating  upon  it  in  his  closet,  with  a  view  to  deter 
mining  whether  he  should  give  or  withhold  his  assent.     '  Let 
me    reflect,'    he    might    say,   *  can    I    with    a    safe    conscience 
subscribe  to  what  is  now  proposed  to  me   for   subscription  ? 
"  The  Son,  which  is  the  Word  of  the  Father."     Yes,  it  appears 
to  me  much  more  probable,  that  the  Logos  means  a  Person, 
than  that  it  denotes  only  the  power  or  wisdom  of  God,  or  his 
mandate;  and  I  do  not  see,  from  the  connection  of  expressions, 
that  any  Person  can  be  meant  different  from  him  who  is  called 
the  Son.     That  this  Person  may  be  said  to  have  been  "  be 
gotten  of  the  Father,"  is  plain  from   the  very  appellation  of 
Son,  and  from  many  passages  of  Scripture.     But,  "from  ever 
lasting  r  that  may  require  a  pause.     I  find  the  idea  of  eternal 

1  Famil.  Illuslr.  p.  38. 


IV.  ii.  39.]  THE  SON  OF  GOD.  585 

II.  generation  too  much  for  my  grasp ;  yet  I  can  say,  that,  accord 
ing  to  the  Scriptures,  the  Son  was  begotten  of  the  Father 
before  he  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Nay,  it  seems  to 
me  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  assign  any  time  as  prior  to  that 
derivation  or  communication  which  is  represented  to  us  as  in 
some  sort  parental ;  or  to  say,  that  the  Son  of  God  is  a  crea 
ture.  I  so  far  understand  what  I  say  as  to  deny  that;  and  I 

356  apprehend,  that  such  negation  was  what  the  compilers  of  the 
Article  principally  intended.'' 

"  The  very  and  eternal  God!" — '  The  Son  seems  to  me  to 
have  the  title  of  God  given  to  him  several  times,  though  verbal 
criticism  has  contended  to  the  contrary,  in  some  instances  ;  but 
besides  that,  he  who  could  do  what  Christ  did,  could,  as  far  as 
my  notions  reach,  do  every  thing:  he  who  knew  what  Christ 
knew,  must  know  every  thing;  and  he  who  is  able  to  do 
all  things,  and  who  knows  all  things,  and  has  existed  "  from 
everlasting"  and  moreover  is  set  forth  as  preserving  all  things, 
is  to  me  God2.  Superior  beings  may  have  different  views,  but 
I  think  I  may  deny  that  any  man  (and  this  was  the  thing 
chiefly  intended  in  the  framing  of  the  article)  has  a  right  to 
refuse  that  title  to  Christ,  or  even  to  call  him  a  God ;  that  is, 
a  God  of  some  inferior  sort ;  the  worship  of  whom  would  be  a 
kind  of  ^ero-worship ;  or  to  fix  any  priority  or  precedence 
between  the  Father  and  him,  considered  as  Divine.  Expres 
sions  relating  to  these  high  matters  might,  for  me,  have  been 
left  indefinite,  as  promoting  rather  a  devout  heart  than  a  spe 
culating  head ;  but,  when  I  am  called  upon  to  prevent  the 
spreading  of  what  appears  to  me  error  and  heresy,  I  must  rea 
son  and  define  as  well  as  I  am  able.' 

"  Of  one  substance  with  the  Father  /" — '  Here  again  I 
pause.  But,  if  I  may  proceed  at  all  upon  the  notion  of  Christ's 
being  the  Jirst-begotten  or  ow/y-begotten  Son  of  God,  I  must 
say,  that  the  Son  is  universally  of  the  same  species  with  the 
Father ;  and  here,  in  this  species,  it  is  the  fundamental  princi 
ple  of  all  rational  religion  to  assert  that  there  is  but  one  indi 
vidual.  I  do  not  understand  this,  but  I  see,  that,  if  this  is 

357  not  allowed,  the  Church  must  either  make  the  Son  of  a  dif 
ferent  species  from  the  Father,  or  make  a  plurality  of  Gods ; 
and  I  conjecture,  that  this  might  induce  the  ancient  Christians 
to  insist  so  much  upon  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  with 
the  Father.     And  I  must  have  as  great  an  insight  into  the 

2  Art.  i.  sect.  10,  towards  beginning. 


586  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  39. 

subject  as  those  have  who  would  make  the  Father  and  Son  of  II. 
different  substances ;   which  I  must  declare  against ;  and  the 
intimacy  of  connection  between  them  being  unbounded  or  infi 
nite1,   I  am  willing  to  express  that  infinity  by  the  affirmative 
expression  prescribed  by  authority."* 

"  Took  man^s  nature  in  the  womb  of  the  Blessed  Virgin." — 
'  However  wonderful,  it  seems  clearly  set  forth  in  Scripture 
(and  I  am  now  thinking  of  nothing  else)  that  this  great  Per 
sonage  became  a  real  man  in  soul  and  body.  This  settled,  I 
should  consider  it  as  implied,  that  he  became  an  human  being 
when  others  became  so,  that  is,  before  birth.  His  conception, 
indeed,  on  the  part  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  supernatural ;  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  that,  on  the  part  of  his  mother, 
it  was  natural;  as  was  all  that  followed.  Some  have  been 
shocked  at  this  idea,  and  have  proposed  their  suppositions  in 
order  to  avoid  it ;  but,  if  Christ  was  real  man  after  his  birth, 
why  not  before  ?  and,  if  he  received  not  from  his  mother  what 
is  usual  before  parturition,  how  could  he  be  said  repeatedly 
to  be  the  seed  of  a  woman,  and  a  Jew  according  to  ihejlesh  ^ 

"  Two  perfect  natures"  "  were  joined  together  in  one  Per 
son" — '  This  is  difficult ;  and,  when  I  try  to  conceive  the 
knowledge  of  God  co-existing  in  Christ  with  the  ignorance  of 
man,  the  power  of  God  with  the  weakness  of  man,  I  find  my 
rational  faculties  feeble  and  impotent.  Yet  I  acquiesce  in  this 
mode  of  stating  the  matter,  in  preference  to  any  other,  because  358 
it  is  simply  and  fairly  taken  from  Scripture — from  the  whole 
of  Scripture  ;  and  because  I  think  it  most  dangerous  and  pre 
sumptuous  to  modify,  or  tamper  with  Scripture,  where  we 
understand  the  least,  and  are  likely  to  understand  the  least. 
Nevertheless,  I  feel  neither  surprise  nor  indignation  at  those 
Christians  (I  mean  now  such  as  have  previously  allowed  both 
the  Divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ)  who  have  proposed 
methods  of  avoiding  difficulties  so  striking.  The  supposition 
that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  must  be  swallowed  up  in  the 
Divine,  may  solve  some  difficulties.  Imagining  two  Christs, 
two  Agents,  or  Persons,  the  one  Divine,  the  other  human — 
the  former  all-wise,  the  latter  ignorant — the  former  powerful, 
the  latter  weak — may  solve  other  difficulties.  And  the  same 
may  be  said  of  other  suppositions  (such  as  the  confusion  of  the 
two  natures,  or  the  conversion  of  one  into  the  other)  ;  but  yet 
all  these  suppositions  have  one  radical  fault,  that  they  neglect 

1  Art.  i.  sect.  10,  beginning. 


IV.  ii.  40.]  THE    SON    OF    GOD.  587 

II.  some  parts  of  Scripture,  in  attending  to  others.  I  cannot  but 
prefer  abiding  by  the  whole  of  Scripture;  leaving  the  difficulties 
of  doctrines  evidently  above  our  comprehension  to  that  time 
when  we  "  shall  know  even  as  we  are  known2." 

"  Never  to  be  divided" — '  If  Christ,  after  his  ascension,  is 
called  man,  even  as  Mediator  and  Judge ;  and  if  honour  shall 
be  ascribed  to  the  Lamb  for  ever  and  ever ;  I  am  clearly  against 
any  man's  presuming  to  assign  any  time  when  the  Divine  and 
human  natures  in  Christ  shall  be  finally  separated.  Which 
seems  to  coincide  with  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  ex 
pression,  "  never  to  be  divided."' 

'  There  is  then  but  "one  Christ" — truly  Divine,  truly  hu 
man.  That  he  " truly  suffered"  died,  and  was  buried, can  be 
359  denied  only  by  mere  arbitrary  supposition,  or  by  the  extrava 
gance  of  mystical  interpretation  ;  except  indeed  by  those  whose 
principle  it  is  to  hold  all  matter  in  abomination,  with  whom  I 
have  nothing  to  do.  Concerning  the  reality  therefore  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  death,  and  burial,  I  have  no  doubts  or  difficulties 
(except  such  as  have  been  already  considered,  arising  from  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  him).  I  reject  all  suppositions 
which  are  perfectly  arbitrary,  when  they  are  opposed  to  ana 
logy  and  experience;  I  allow  no  mystical  exposition,  except 
where  it  is  warranted  by  the  soundest  reason ;  and  I  account 
every  work  of  God  good  in  its  kind.  The  rest  I  will  consider 
hereafter*? 

40.  After  determining  in  what  manner  one  of  ourselves 
may  be  supposed  to  give  his  assent  to  the  Article  under  con 
sideration,  we  come  to  consider  how  it  seems  possible  that  any 
mutual  concessions  should  take  place,  between  our  Church  and 
those  who  dissent  from  it,  tending  to  an  union. 

The  general  end  and  design  of  such  concessions  (it  must 
always  be  remembered)  is  not  to  produce  perfect  unity  of  pri 
vate  opinion4,  but  only  unity  of  doctrine  and  worship. 

In  what  remains  to  be  said  on  this  second  Article,  there  is 
such  a  resemblance  and  connection  between  it  and  the  first,  that 
we  must  be  brief,  in  order  to  avoid  repetition.  There  is  the 
same  reason  here,  as  in  the  first  Article,  why  we  should  profess 
our  doctrine  to  be  unintelligible,  why  we  should  constantly 
make  public  claim  to  the  title  of  Unitarians,  and  why  we 
should  consider  the  nature  of  invocation  of  the  Son  of  God  ; 
and  what  might  be  expected  from  dissenters,  in  return  for  con- 

2  1  Cor.  xiii.  12.  3  Sec  opening  of  this  Article.  '  Book  III.  ch.  iv. 


588  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  11.  41. 

cessions  and  healing  expedients  on  our  part,  is  much  the  same  II. 
as  under  the  preceding  Article,  Nay,  we  may  extend  the  360 
observation  even  to  improvements.  These  must  arise  here,  as 
well  as  before,  from  attending  to  the  true  nature  and  use  of 
philosophy;  from  watching  nicely  the  circumstances  in  which 
expressions  are  introduced ;  from  being  cautious  of  forming 
unintelligible,  that  is,  verbal  propositions,  into  syllogisms,  or 
arguments  ;  from  investigating  the  different  scriptural  senses  of 
the  word  God ;  from  attaining  a  clearer  notion  of  the  uses  of 
our  doctrine.  Moreover,  we  might  make  a  critical  inquiry 
into  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  an  Appendix  to  this  Article,  as  we  made 
an  inquiry  concerning  1  John  v.  7,  an  Appendix  to  the  last. 
The  difficulty,  in  short,  is,  how  to  keep  up  our  form,  and 
suggest  any  thing  new. 

41.  What  was  said,  under  the  preceding  Article1,  of  the 
general  effect  of  invidious  names  and  appellations,  is  applicable 
here;  but  the  particular  word  there  specified,  viz.  Trinity, 
does  not  belong  to  us  at  present.  As  it  seems  to  be  of  great 
consequence  that  we  speak  the2  same  thing;  and  as  men  are 
generally  more  affected  by  sounds  than  ideas;  we  might  propose 
it  as  a  question,  whether  the  word  God,  in  such  expressions  as 
"God  the  Son,"  and  "  God  the  Holy  Ghost,"  could  be  omitted 
in  our  Offices,  without  a  material  fault.  Though  Christ  seems 
to  us  to  be  called  God  in  several  places,  yet  there  is  some  dis 
pute  on  that  head ;  and,  for  the  sake  of  Unity,  we  would  pay 
all  possible  respect  to  the  opinions  of  our  adversaries.  I  should 
imagine,  that  such  an  omission  would  tend,  almost  as  much  as 
any  thing,  to  mollify  and  conciliate.  There  is  not  perhaps  any 
express  command  to  invoke  Christ  under  the  title  of  God.  The 
early  Christians*  used  to  invoke  Christ;  and  Pliny  says,  36l 
tanquam  Deum ;  yet  Pliny's  idea  of  a  God  was  not  confined 
to  the  one  supreme  invisible  Being.  St.  Stephen  addresses 
Christ,  but  does  not  use  the  word  God,  though  it  is  found  in 
our  translation,  in  italics ;  and  his  address  is  the  ejaculation  of 
a  man  dying  in  the  Christian  cause.  If  Christ  was  to  be  wor 
shipped  on  earth,  he  must  be  a  proper  object  of  worship  when 
ascended  into  heaven ;  but  it  may  be  considered,  whether  he 
might  not  be  entitled  Mediator,  Intercessor,  Judge,  Head  of 
the  Church,  instead  of  God.  The  equality  of  Christ  to  the 
Father  was  most  perfect  in  his  pre-existent  state :  in  his  state 

1  Art.  i.  sect.  11.  2  1  Cor.  i.  10. 

. 3  1  Cor.  i.  2.    Book  I.  chap,  xviii.  sect.  13. 


IV.  ii.  42.] 


THE    SON    OF    GOD. 


589 


II.  after  his  ascension,  in  which  he  now  exists,  he  deigns  to  be 
called  man41  in  some  sense  :  he  has  not  entirely  put  off  his 
human  nature. 

42.  It  might  tend  to  promote  unity,  as  far  as  it  is 
necessary  for  the  purposes  of  religious  society,  if  we  brought 
some  of  our  forms  nearer  to  expressions  of  Scripture:  not 
only  those  which  we  are  to  use  in  prayer,  but  those  which 
contain  confessions  of  faith.  We  have  already5  given  a  scrip 
tural  address  to  Christ.  But  to  be  frank  here,  I  suppose  that 
some  might  hope  for  more  from  this  measure  than  it  would  in 
fact  produce.  All  Christians  will  assent  to  Scripture,  but 
then  we  do  not  use  the  Scriptures  in  the  original  languages, 
and  different  parties  translate  differently ;  and,  even  according 
to  our  own  translation,  Dr.  Balguy's  observation  has  great6 
weight ; — "  Subscription  to  the  Scriptures  is  absolutely  no 
thing.  It  is  consistent  with  every  imaginable  absurdity  and 
mischief,"  &c.  We  may  add,  that  the  manner  of  placing  and 
introducing  passages  of  Scripture  is,  in  a  way,  interpreting 

362  them:  as  would  appear  from  comparing  two  scriptural  cate 
chisms  together  in  disputed7  points.  Nevertheless,  I  should 
imagine,  that  some  good  might  be  attained,  in  some  instances, 
by  the  measure  here  proposed.  It  was,  I  doubt  not,  an  ease 
of  mind  to  Eusebius  to  use  TrpcoroTOKov*  Tracn/e  KTIUCWS,  as  he 
thereby  suited  his  own  opinions,  and  avoided  any  invidious 
opposition  to  them.  And  "  the  Son  of  God"  has  been  used 
by  different  persons,  united  in  worship,  in  different9  senses. 
The  more  candid  people  are,  the  more  use  will  they  make  of 
this  expedient. 

Episcopius,  as  a  leader  of  the  Arminian  sect,  has  com 
posed  (or  was  greatly  instrumental  in  composing)  a  confession 
of  faith,  in  terms  chiefly  scriptural.  The  intent  of  this  was  to 
comprehend  men  of  different  religious  opinions  in  one  religious 
society ;  and  the  effect  has  been  in  some  measure  answerable  to 
the  design.  For  the  leading  writers  of  the  Arminians  do 
differ  in  many  points,  though  they  unite  in  public  doctrine. 
However,  this  agreement  has  its  limits.  Papists  are  excluded 


4  Acts  xvii.  31.    1  Tim.  ii.  5. 

5  Art.  i.  sect.  14.  6  8vo,  p.  277. 

7  Compare  an  orthodox  scriptural  Cate 
chism  with  Biddle's.  In  Cambr.  Library, 
the  former  is  E— 5— 72;  the  latter  C— 14 
— 66.  Dr.  Priestley  has  compiled  a 
Scriptural  Catechism. 


8  Eusebius's  Creed  is  in  Socrates.  L,  i. 
c.  viii ;  and  a  Translation  into  English, 
in  Dr.  Rutherforth's  last  Charge,  p.  82. 
And  in  the  histories  of  the  first  Nicene 
Council. 

9  Book  III.  chap.  iv.  sect.  5. 


590 


ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  43,  44. 


from  Arminian  societies  as  persecutors,  and  those  Protestants  II. 
who  favour  predestination1. 

In  my  Sermon  on  the  Athanasian  Creed,  I  have  recom 
mended  inserting  Mark  xvi.  16,  repeatedly,  instead  of  the 
damnatory  clauses. 

43.  With   regard  to  what  might  be  done  by  dissenters  363 
towards   a  coalition,   little  need  be  added  to  what  was   said 
under  the  preceding2  Article.      It  appears  from  thence  that 
they  may  more  easily3  yield  than  we.      Such  is  the  nature  of 
what  we  hold,  that  they  might  suffer  us  to  proceed  in  our  own 
way,  though  with  contemptuous  pity.      They  might  suffer  us 

as  fools  gladly,  seeing  they  themselves  are  wise.  But  dis 
senters  from  the  Church  of  England  are  not  all  upon  the  same 
footing.  The  ancient  Arians4  (and  some,  I  suppose,  of  their 
way  of  thinking  continue),  spake  high  things  of  Christ;  the 
original  Socinians5  did  the  same:  but,  with  regard  to  dis 
senters  in  general,  on  the  subject  of  the  second  Article,  we 
may  say,  that  our  claim  to  their  assistance  in  reconciling  and 
uniting,  is  built  on  the  nearness  of  our  doctrines  to  theirs; 
particularly  in  all  points  nearly  affecting  piety &  and  virtue;  on 
our  not  having,  in  many  of  the  disputed  points,  what  can  pro 
perly  be  called  an  opinion ;  and  on  their  relating  not  to  man, 
and  what  he  has  to  do,  but  to  the  Divine  nature,  and  what  is 
to  be  done  on  the  part  of  God.  But  I  do  not  perceive,  that 
dissenters  are  contriving  healing  measures :  they  seem  all  mere 
advocates. 

The  doctrine  of  Atonement  we  take  no  notice  of  at  present. 

44.  We  are,  in  the  last  place,  to  see  what  openings  there  364 
seem   to  be  for  improvements  relative  to  the  subject  of  our 
Article.     Here  again,  as  I  have  lately  observed,  we  have  anti 
cipated,  under  the  first  Article,  what  might  have  been  offered 
under  the  second. 


1  See  Episcopius,  torn.  u.  part  2,  p.  69. 
An  account  of  the  Confession,  Part  ii. 
p.  169.    Also  Mosheim,  8vo,  vol.  v.  p. 

461.  cent.  1? ii.  2.  iii.  12.  The  Pref.  of 

Curcellaeus,   sect.  6,  was  mentioned  be 
fore,  Art.  i.  sect.  10,  near  the  end;  and 
sect.  21  of  this  Art. 

Arminius  died  in  1609 ;  Episcopius  in 
1643. 

2  Sect.  15. 

3  1J94.  I  am  mortified  to  find  that  Dr. 
Priestley  holds  the    contrary.    Letters, 


pp.  20,  22 ;  and  expresses  wishes  of  being 
accommodated. 

4  Lard.  vol.  iv.  p.  127.  Dr.  Priestley's 
Letters,   p.  100;   and  other   Letters  to 
Dr.  Price.    Waterland's  Case  of  Arian 
Subscription,  p.  33. 

5  See  Cat.  Racov.  pp.  52,  53,  and  115, 
with  preceding.     For  modern  Socinians, 
see  sect.  12,  or  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters, 
p.  101. 

6  Book   III.  chap.  iv.  sect.  4  and  5, 
quoted  Art.  i.  sect.  15. 


IV.  ii.  45.] 


THE    SON    OF    GOD. 


591 


II.  45.  But  yet  it  seems  as  if  some  improvement  might  pos 
sibly  arise  from  examining  whether  the  expressions  of  Scrip 
ture,  about  which  we  contend,  are  to  be  studied  in  a  scientific 
manner  ?  whether  they  are  not  some  of  them  rather  expressions 
of  strong  affection  and  sublime  devotion  ?  Consider  the  case. 
In  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  Christians  seem  to  have  felt  a 
great  deal  of  pious7  gratitude,  and  devout  admiration,  and  to 
have  uttered  what  they  felt  in  an  artless  manner.  Passionate 
expressions  are  always  understood  as  indefinite  ;  and  the  lan 
guage  of  Scripture,  being  natural  language,  must  be  inter 
preted  as  such.  Expressions  that  are  merely  sublime  must  be 
indefinite,  I  mean  such  as,  in  human  language,  relate  to  the 
nature  and  counsels8  of  God ;  because  they  cannot  convey  dis 
tinct  ideas  ;  and  they  are  the  more  indefinite,  because  they  are 
affecting,  or  excite  passion.  Now,  if  the  expressions  of  the 
earliest  Christian  writers  were  at  first  indefinite,  they  certainly 
ought  always  to  continue  so ;  to  give  any  such  a  definite  sense, 
is  to  misinterpret  them.  We  have  mentioned  the  word  7r\rj- 
jowjua,  as  an9  instance;  others10  might  be  added;  only  there  is 

365  danger  lest  it  should  be  thought,  of  any  one  instance,  that  its 
being  indefinite  is  too  positively  asserted.  Instances  here  are 
only  to  give  a  general  idea. 

Making  expressions  to  be,  after  this  manner,  taken  in 
an  indefinite  sense  (supposing  that  their  right  sense),  would 
not  only  be  an  improvement  in  interpreting,  but  it  would 
probably  tend  greatly  to  lessen  dissension,  and  to  promote 
devotion.  People  would  not  quarrel  about  the  sense  of  a 
passage,  which  would  only  be  understood  as  sentimental  and 
affecting,  any  more  than  about  an  exclamation  or  an  inter 
jection.  And,  if  senses  of  expressions  were  indefinite,  they 
would  be  pliable ;  all  might  adopt  them,  in  one  way  or  other, 
without  finding  fault  with  their  brethren :  there  would  be  no 
dread  of  consequences,  and  probably  no  jealousy  or  bitterness. 
Then,  devotion  arises  naturally  on  the  absence  of  dispute11 ; 
and  we  should  have  a  great  number  of  fine,  sublime,  and 


7  Art.  i.  sect.  4. 

8  John  iii.  12,  might  be  applied  here ; 
substituting  for  belief  a  necessary  pre 
vious  step,  understanding : — "  If  I  have 
told  you  earthly  things,  and  ye"  under 
stand  not,  how  shall  ye  understand,  "  if 
I  tell  you  of  heavenly  things  ?" 

9  Sect.  17  of  Appendix  to  Book  1. 


10  Heb.  i.  3,  brightness  of  his  glory. 
Eph.  i.  23,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth 
all  in  all.    1  Cor.  viii.  6.  Heb.  ii.  10,  the 
prepositions:  see  before  sect.  16.     They 
shall  be  as  the  angels.    John  xxi.  25, 
the  world  would  not  contain  the  books. 

11  Book  III.  chap.  iii.  sect.  4. 


592  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  ii.  46. 

pathetic   expressions,  which   we  have   not   now,   to  help   our  II. 
devotion1. 

46.  And,  when  we  are  looking  forward  to  imaginary 
improvements,  it  is  natural  to  consider,  not  only  what  will 
probably  happen,  but  what  may  possibly.  Now  there  seems 
nothing  out  of  the  reach  of  possibility  in  supposing,  that  per 
sons,  differing  in  the  points  which  we  have  now  been  dis 
cussing,  and  even  in  other  points,  may  join  in  divine  worship, 
and  with  a  sufficient  agreement  in  opinion.  A  perfect  agree 
ment  seems  beyond  all  possible  expectation;  but  a  perfect  ease, 
composure,  and  quiet  of  mind,  and  freedom  from  actual  dis 
sension,)  does  not  seem  so.  Such  reflections  as  we  have  been 
making  must  shew  the  mode  of  beginning ;  and  the  instances 
formerly  produced  must  afford  hopes  of  success.  Some  for-  366 
bearance  is  certainly  required,  but  not  more  than  might  be 
attained.  The  truth  is,  most  men  are  under  the  dominion  of 
some  hypotheses ;  in  most  things  perhaps ;  but  particularly  in 
the  mysterious  parts  of  religion,  where  education a  has  given  a 
particular  view  of  the  Scriptures,  and  controversy  has  fixed  us 
in  our  favoured  notions.  After  this,  we  are  never  so  easy  as 
in  our  own  habitual  train  of  ideas  and  conceptions.  If  this 
was  once  universally  allowed,  and  thoroughly  acquiesced  in,  it 
would  be  so  far  from  dividing  us,  that  it  would  be  the  means 
of  our  living  quietly  together,  and  even  uniting  in  religious 
worship,  without  taking  offence  at  each  other's  peculiarities. 
We  should  let  the  Quaker  and  the  Dutchman  keep  their  hats 
on,  and  they  would  let  us  take  ours  off.  And  the  same 
mutual  indulgence  would  take  place  in  expressions  of  devotion, 
and  declarations  of  faith,  though  made  in  the  presence  of  all 
parties. 

If  it  would  not  seem  extravagant,  I  would  propose,  as  a 
question  for  discussion,  how  much  greater  forbearance  it  would 
require  for  men,  who  differed  in  religious  notions,  to  worship 
together,  so  as  to  attain  the  proper  ends  of  religious  society ; 
than  for  men,  who  differed  in  their  manner  of  eating  and 
drinking,  to  partake  of  the  same  meal,  so  as  to  attain  the 
proper  ends  of  convivial  society  ?  Eating  and  drinking  dif- 

1  It  might  be  worth  while  to  read  here  In  this  passage  I  have  the  satisfaction  to 
a    passage   which    Dr.  Burney  quotes  I  agree  with  this  author ;  not  in  many — I 
from  Augustin.     See  his  account  of  the  j  mean,  of  his  controversial  writings:  in 
Commemoration  of  Handel,  p.  90,  and  \  things  unwritten   I  agree  with  him,   I 
Hist.  Music,  vol.  IT.  p.  172.  j  suppose,   generally.     For  the   instances 

2  See  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters,  p.  168.  '  just  now  mentioned,  see  Art.  i.  sect.  15. 


IV.  ii.  46.]  THE   SON  OF   GOD.  593 

II.  ferent    things,  you    will  say,   arises  only  from  a  difference  of 
taste — it  is  a  matter  of  liking  and  disliking ;  it  would  be  very 

367  idle  if  people  were  to  eat  at  separate  tables,  because  they  did 
not  all  prefer  the  same  dish.      But  have  liking  and  disliking, 
have  taste  and  distaste,  nothing  to  do  with  religion  ?     In  the 
extended    sense,   a  great  deal.     One  man  loves  sacred  music 
above  all  things ;  another  abominates  an  organ  :  one  is  edified 
and  moved  with  a  fine  picture,  of  a  nativity,  or  a  tatting  down 
from  the  Cross ;  another  would  banish  all  pictures  from  every 
place   of  worship.      And  hymns,   and  sermons,  or  pulpit-elo 
quence,  and  even  the  eloquence  of  prayers,  are  much  connected 
with  taste ;  and,  if  some  of  the  lofty  sayings,  on  which  specu 
lative  doctrines  have  been  built,  are  really  expressions  of  senti 
ment  and  affection,  the  reception  and  application  of  them  may 
be  guided    by   taste,   in   a  considerable    degree.     Those    who 
are  of  noble  and  generous  dispositions,  and  have  been  liberally 
educated,  give  into  doctrines  which  are  sublime  and  pathetic ; 
whilst  the  more  cold,  precise,   barren   minds  rather  give  into 
those  doctrines  which  lower  the  dignity  of  Christ,  and  reduce 
all   religious    notions    to    vulgar    and    ordinary    conceptions. 
Gloominess  of  temper  has  probably  often  made  a  man  embrace 
the   doctrine  of  absolute  Reprobation — of  condemnation  by  a 
direct  decree  of  God  to  eternal  misery.      But   moreover,  dis 
sensions    concerning   meats  and  drinks,   though  perhaps   they 
really  arise  from  taste,  may  be  supported   by  much  philoso 
phical  reasoning.     What  may  not  be  urged  concerning  acids, 
and  alkalis,  and  inflammatory  liquors  ?   what  concerning  c«n- 
coction    and    digestion  ?    the    effects,    natural    and    moral,    of 
animal  and  vegetable  sustenance  ?     The  rules  of  different  con 
vents,  orders  of  monks,  &c.   &c.,  are  founded   on   these  prin 
ciples.       If   people    were    as    much    inclined    to    bigotry   and 
persecution    about    these   things,    as    some   have    been    about 
spiritual  food,  a  convivial  meeting  would  be  a  thing  impracti- 

368  cable.     And  now,  suppose  men  divided  into  small  parties,  re 
fusing  to  eat,  except   with   those  who  used  the  same  quality 
and    quantity    of  nourishment    with    themselves,    what    would 
you  say  to  them  ?     If  your  exhortations  to  unity  of  repast  be 
in  general  terms,  observe  whether  many  of  them  are  not  ap 
plicable  to  unity  of  worship. 

I   conclude  these  remarks  with   observing,  that  what  has 
been  said  in  order  to  shew  that  men  might  possibly  unite  in 
worship,  though  they  differed  greatly  in  opinion,  does  not  affect 
VOL.  I.  38 


594  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  iii.  1. 

the  force  of  any  thing  which  has  been  urged  in  defence  of  the  II. 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  either  as  to  their  truth  or 
importance.  It  supposes  each  person  to  rest  in  his  peculiar 
notions,  upon  what  seem  to  him  good  grounds ;  but  only  to 
shew  great  candour  and  forbearance  towards  the  opinions  of 
others,  notwithstanding  all  his  reasoning  in  favour  of  his  own. 

If  agreement  in  mind  and  judgment,  as  well  as  in  teaching 
and  worship,  is  finally  to  be  accomplished  in  any  way,  it  must 
be  in  this. 


ARTICLE    III.  369 

OF    THE    GOING    DOWN    OF    CHRIST    INTO    HELL. 

As  Christ  died  for  us,  and  was  buried,  so  also  is  it  to  be 
believed,  that  he  went  down  into  Hell. 


1.  In  treating  on  this  Article,  we  shall  follow  our  usual 
plan;  attempting  history,  explanation,  and  proof;  and  then 
some  application  to  the  present  state  of  things. 

History  is  the  first  thing.  The  case  seems  to  be  the  same 
with  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  descent  into  hell,  and  many  others; 
they  were  believed  in  an  indefinite  way,  before  they  were  pub 
licly  and  formally  professed.  The  passage  of  Augustin  seems 
to  be  well  known :  "  Quis  ergo  nisi  infidelis  negaverit  fuisse 
apud  inferos  Christum  ?" 

This  continued  for  some  centuries ;  perhaps,  if  we  speak 
with  respect  to  the  Church  at  large,  we  may  say  till  the  begin 
ning  of  the  fifth  century ;  that  is,  as  far  as  we  are  informed  by 
the  ancients.  At  length,  the  doctrine  got  to  be  inserted  in 
creeds.  It  is  said1  to  have  been  inserted  as  an  antidote  to 
the  Apollinarian  heresy2,  as  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  notion 
that  Christ  had  no  human  soul,  and  that  the  functions  of  the 
soul  were  performed  by  the  Aoyos.  Yet,  though  the  Apolli- 
narians  had  some  affinity  to  the  Arians,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
descent  into  hell  does  not  seem  to  have  entered  into  the  Arian  370 
controversy.  It  was  in  some  Arian  creeds  before  it  was  (seem 
ingly)  in  any  that  were  orthodox  3 ;  yet  it  was  not  to  be  called 

1  Lord  King,  chap.  iv.  2  Art.  ii.  sect.  6. 

3  Bingham,  10. 3,  end.     Pearson,  Creed,  p.  472,  1st  edit. 


IV.  Hi.  1.]  THE    DESCENT    INTO    HELL.  595 

II.  an  Arian  doctrine,  because  several  Arian  creeds  omitted  it. 
The  Arian  presbyters,  who  write  to  Alexander  bishop  of  Alex 
andria4,  have  it  not;  neither  is  it  in  the  creed  delivered  by  Arius 
and  Euzoius  to  the  Emperor5  Constantine. 

It  appears  that  the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell  has  been 
confounded  with  his  burial.  So  that  it  has  happened  some 
times,  that,  where  one  of  these  was  inserted  in  a  creed,  the 
other  was  omitted.  Our  Nicene  Creed  has  the  burial  without 
the  descent;  and  the  Athanasian  Creed  has  the  descent  without 
the  burial. 

As  this  may  seem  unaccountable,  we  will  just  mention  here, 
that  the  words  ^w^ff  and  a$*/$  have  been  used  in  various  senses. 
^V^YI  has  been  sometimes  rendered  the  body,  as  the  context  in 
some  passages6  of  the  LXX.  fully  allows.  That  it  should  be 
rendered  soul,  will  seem  obvious.  'Aitft  is  several  times  in 
Scripture  translated  grave,  on  account  of  the  meaning  of  the 
sentence  in  which  it  occurs ;  and  it  is  frequently  translated  hell. 
'H  ^v^rj  ets  q$ov,  then,  may  be  construed  according  to  these 
senses,  either  the  body  in  the  grave,  or,  the  soul  in  hell ;  and 
therefore  those  who  thought  it  meant  the  one  might  think  it 
could  not  mean  the  other ;  and  consequently,  if  they  made  pro 
fession  of  the  burial  of  Christ's  body,  might  pass  over  the  descent 
of  his  soul  into  hell.  Perhaps  more  satisfaction  may  be  had 
with  regard  to  ^v^tj,  as  understood  to  mean  the  body,  when 
we  come  to  the  explanation. 

371  Bishop  Pearson,  in  his  exposition  of  the  Creed 7,  says,  very 
truly,  that  "  The  first  place  we  find  it"  (the  Article  of  the  de 
scent  into  hell)  "used  in  was  the  church  of  Aquileia :"  he  means, 
about  the  year  400.  Though  this  is  true,  yet  perhaps  caution 
may  be  required,  lest  it  should  induce  us  to  think  that  our  first 
observation  is  ill-grounded ;  or,  that  the  doctrine  was  then  in 
vented  (Voltaire),  or  not  expressly  acknowledged  before.  Eti- 
sebius*  gives  a  very  short  explication  of  the  Christian  faith, 
which  he  reckons  very  ancient ;  and  says,  he  translated  it  from 
the  Syriac,  as  what  had  been  given  by  St.  Thadda?us  to  the 
people  of  Edessa.  In  this,  we  find  /care/3)/  ets  TOV  qSrjv.  And 
Lord  King 9  mentions  the  Article  or  doctrine  as  in  a  creed  of 


Epiphanius,  Art.  2.  sect.  6. 


5  Socrat.  Hist.  i.  19. 


6  Lev.  xxi.  1,  2.    Numb.  v.  2  ;  vL  6. 
These  passages  had  better  be  considered 


7  Opening  of  5th  Article. 

8  Euseb.  i.  13,  cited  by  Bingham,  10. 
4.  end.    Eusebius  is  placed  in  315. 


On  the  Creed,  p.  2fil. 


in  the  explanation. 

38 2 


596  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  IH.  2. 

Epiphanius ]  ,•  and  in  an  Arian  creed  delivered  to  the  Council  II. 
of  Ariminum,  held  under  Constantius  in  359-  Ruffinus  does 
indeed  mention  that  it  was  not  in  the  Roman,  nor  in  the  Orien 
tal  creeds  in  his  time ;  on  which  we  may  just  remark,  that  the 
Roman  Church  was  not  then  so  extensive  as  it  was  afterwards; 
and  that  there  might  possibly  be  Oriental  creeds  unknown  to 
Ruffinus,  a  presbyter  of  Aquileia;  and  lastly,  that  the  doctrine 
might  be  taught  at  many  places,  and  even  at  Aquileia,  before 
the  time  of  Ruffinus. 

Should  this  caution  with  regard  to  Bishop  Pearson  be 
thought  unnecessary,  yet  it  will  be  thought  right  to  say  some 
thing  of  Bishop  Burnet.  He  has,  in  his  contents,  "  Ruffin 
first  published  this  in  the  Creed;"11  which  must  not  give  us  an 
idea  that  it  was  not  publicly  rehearsed  before ;  but  only,  that  372 
the  first  book  we  find  it  in  is  Ruffin's  exposition  ;  which  indeed 
is  rightly  expressed  by  Bishop  Burnet  afterwards2,  where  he 
owns  that  Ruffin  found  the  doctrine  in  the  creed  of  his  own 
church.  The  same  prelate  speaks 3  as  if  Ruffinus  confounded 
the  descent  with  the  burial  in  his  own  opinion;  whereas  he  held 
them  to  be  distinct  events ;  only  he  thought,  that  when  any 
church,  which  had  the  descent,  omitted  the  burial,  it  was  be 
cause  that  church  confounded 4  the  two  together.  Bishop  Bur- 
net  also  says,  that  though  the  descent  was  in  the  Aquileian 
creed,  "  there  was  no5  other  article  in  that  symbol  that  related 
to  Christ's  burial ,-"  which  does  not  seem  accurate,  as  the  word 
SEPULTUS  is  in  capital  letters,  as  part  of  the  creed  expounded6. 

2.  The  doctrine  under  consideration  was  at  first  founded 
on  some  texts,  which  have  since  been  thought  not  intended  to 
support  it.  Ephes.  iv.  9.  Col.  ii.  15.  1  Pet.  iii.  19.  The 
only  pillar  on  which  it  now  rests  is  Acts  ii.  24 — 31.  But,  when 
we  come  to  our  proof,  I  hope  that  we  shall  find  that  pillar  suf 
ficiently  strong.  It  is  probable  that  controversy  and  discussion 
have  reduced  it  into  its  present  shape.  And  I  think  there  is 
an  appearance  of  ingenuousness  and  fairness  in  dismissing  texts, 
as  it  were,  and  retaining  only  one ;  at  the  same  time  that  the 
doctrine  is  thought  so  essential  a  part  of  the  history  of  our 
Lord,  that  it  is  not  to  be  omitted  even  in  our  shortest  creed. 

The  more  settled  the  general  doctrine  of  Christ's  descent 


1  Haer.  lib.  3.     Epiphanius  is  placed 
in  368.    Ruffinus  in  397. 

2  Art.  iii.  opening.        3  Art.  iii.  end. 
4  See  Bp.  Pearson,  p.  472,  first  edit,  or 


332,  sixth  edit. 


5  Burnet  on  Art.  iii.  first  paragraph. 
u  See  also  Bingham  ;  who  gives  "  se- 
pultus,  et  descendit  ad  inferna." 


IV.   Hi.  2.]  THE    DESCENT    INTO    HELL.  597 

II.  into  hell  was  in  the  mind  of  any  one,  the  more  he  suffered  his 
373  imagination  to  wander  in  search  of  particulars.  The  idea  of 
Marcion  7  was,  that  Christ  preached  in  hell  to  the  good  spirits 
without  success,  as  they  suspected  him  ;  but  that  the  damned 
spirits,  confined  by  the  Creator,  Corah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram, 
heard  him,  and  were  rescued.  Other  divines  asked  questions, 
and  answered  them  according  to  their  own  fancies.  Did  Christ 
really  descend  ?  to  what  place  ?  in  what  manner  ?  to  what  be 
ings?  with  what  views?  These  questions  might  admit  a  variety 
of  answers.  Philosophers  had  liberty  to  get  wrong  by  taking 
popular  words  in  a  philosophical  sense.  Judaizers  might  fol 
low  the  Jewish  traditions  about  Paradise  and  another  world. 
And,  to  come  nearer  ourselves,  we  find,  that  men  of  gloomy  and 
austere  tempers,  who  conceived  ill  enough  of  the  Deity  to  hold 
the  doctrine  of  absolute  reprobation,  determined  that  Christ 
went  to  the  place  of  the  damned,  and  suffered  their  pains;  and 
that  it  was  highly  proper  he  should  do  so,  in  order  to  complete 
the  redemption  of  mankind.  Such  were  Calvin  and  Beza,  and 
the  other  divines  of  Geneva.  Those  of  milder  dispositions 
(I  suppose)  held  that  Christ  went  only  to  Paradise.  And  pos 
sibly  it  might  be  a  noble  turn  of  thinking  which  set  others  on 
maintaining,  that  Christ  descended  to  hell  in  order  to  triumph 
over  the  hosts  of  Satan  and  the  powers  of  darkness. 

But  we  should  not  entirely  pass  over  the  Limbus  Patrum; 
yet  it  is  scarce  worth  while  studying  it,  so  as  to  get  a  precise 
idea,  though  it  is  irksome  to  lay  down  any  thing  incorrectly. 
Before  the  coming  of  Christ  there  were  the  patriarchs,  and 
many  well-meaning  men  ;  they  surely  could  not  be  all  damned; 
374  though  we  must  not  think  they  were  sent  to  absolute  Paradise: 
nor  could  they  reside  amongst  vulgar,  ordinary  spirits ;  they 
must  be,  then,  in  a  Limbus,  an  outer  border,  in  the  suburbs 
(TTpoda-Teiov) — the  purlieus  of  Paradise.  And  Christ  must  have 
descended  to  hell,  in  order  to  transport  them  from  thence  to  a 
better  place.  It  would  be  hard,  too,  that  harmless  infants, 
when  they  die,  should  go  into  a  place  of  torment ;  and  there 
fore  this  Limbus  may  supply  a  suitable  accommodation  for 
them — though  it  be  properly  the  Limbus  Patrum.  So  con 
siderate  and  provident  were  some  of  the  ancients  in  their  pious 
reveries  ! 

The  Article  of  1552  differs  from  our  present  one,  in  making 
the  doctrine  more  particular,  and  to  be  built  upon  a  particular 

'   Lardncr's  Hicr.  IMarcion,  sect.  18. 


598 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  iii.  3. 


text;  so  that  no  one  could  subscribe  to  it  who  did  not  believe  II* 
that  the  spirit  of  Christ,  between  the  time  of  his  death  and  re 
surrection,  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison,  and  that  1  Pet.  iii. 
19  referred  to  Christ's  descent  into  hell.  The  leaders  of  the 
Church  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth  seem  to  have  been  very 
wise  in  the  alteration  they  made ;  and  in  leaving  the  doctrine 
grounded  on  the  Scripture  at  large,  and  on  the  nature  of  the 
thing  ;  more  especially  as  the  text,  of  which  every  subscriber 
to  the  Articles  was  supposed  to  form  a  judgment,  is,  by  some1, 
accounted  one  of  the  most  difficult  passages  of  Scripture.  It 
is  possible  that  the  Puritans  may  have  contributed  to  the  alter 
ation  ;  as  they  were  Calvinists,  and  therefore  probably  adopted 
the  notion  of  Calvin  just  now  mentioned,  that  Christ  went  down 
to  hell,  not  to  preach,  but  to  redeem. 

If  we  look  into  Strype's*  Life  of  Archbishop  Whitgift,  we 
shall  see  that  the  notions  of  Calvin  and  the  Geneva  divines 
continued  to  be  popular,  and  occasioned  some  disturbance: 
occasioned  a  breach  in  the  unity  of  doctrine*.  Though  no  375 
opinions  appear  there  but  such  as  have  been  already  mentioned, 
it  may  be  interesting  and  useful  to  read  a  page4  or  two,  in 
which  the  disputes  on  this  head  are  described.  It  may  also 
afford  a  reason  why  Bishop  Pearson  and  Lord  King  treat  so 
largely  on  this  subject. 

The  Americans  leave  out  this  article  in  the  Apostles'  Creed 
of  their  new  Liturgy. 

3.  I  have  now  finished  my  history,  and  therefore  will  pro 
ceed  to  explanation.  But,  though  our  Article  is  expressed  in 
general  terms,  and  may  therefore  admit  of  several  meanings, 
yet  I  will  confine  myself  to  that  which  seems  to  me  the  right 
one ;  as  it  is  the  one  now  generally  received.  It  is  here  then 
declared,  as  what  every  Christian  should  believe  and  profess, 
that  the  humanity  of  Christ  was  uniformly  maintained,  from 
the  time  of  his  death  to  the  time  of  his  resurrection.  As  his 
body  was  in  the  grave  during  that  time,  so  every  thing  happen 
ed  to  his  spiritual  part  which  is  naturally  incident  to  man. 
Our  Church  avoids  all  particulars  as  to  the  meaning  of  hell, 
its  inhabitants,  &c.;  nay,  does  not  so  much  as  mention  the 
soul  of  Christ,  only  says,  "  He  went  down,"  &c.;  yet,  as 
it  seems  decisive,  that  the  Descent  is  something  distinct  from 


1  See  Poole's  Synopsis. 
3  Book  IV.  chap.  xxi. 
3  Book  III.  chap.  iv.  sect.  3,  end. 


A.D.  1597. 

4  Particularly  the  first  halves  of  pp. 
502,  and  ,101. 


IV.  iii.  3.] 


THE    DESCENT    INTO    HELL. 


599 


II.  the  burial,  we  may  well  suppose  that  by  "He"  is  meant  his  soul. 
"As  Christ"  "was  buried,  so  also" — "he  went  down  into  hell." 
Were  not  the  expression  limited  by  the  context,  it  might 
signify,  either  that  his  body  went  down  into  the  grave,  or  that 
his  soul  went  into  the  usual  habitation  of  departed  souls,  or 
both :  and  r]  ^wyj]  avrov  /care/3*;  et?  rov  qSrjv,  admits  of  all 

376  these  senses;   which  is  the  thing  that  is  now  to  be  shewn5.     It 
does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  said  quite  accurately,   that  ^fvyjn 
means  the  body,  but  it  means  the  animal,  the  man6,  the  same 
as  ipse,  or  as  He  in  our  Article ;  and  therefore  it  may  denote 
either  part  of   the  man,  according  to   the  circumstances    in 
which  it  is  introduced.     The  case  is  the  same  of  the  word  or 
noun  man,  and  its  pronouns.     '  I  saw  a  dead  man,"1  does  not 
mean  a  dead  soul ;   *  I  have  been  conversing  with  a  wise  man,1 
does  not  denote  a  wise  body.     So  ^/v~xfi  TereXeirr^/cina,   as  it 
means  a  dead  man,  may  mean  a  dead  body,  but  that  is  not 
quite  the  same  as  that  ^vyy  properly  means  a  body.     We  find 
ets  ^yYiyy  '(wvav,  Gen.  ii.  7»  and  1  Cor.  xv.  45.     If  it  be  said, 
^v\n  primarily  signifies  soul,  I  do  not  deny  it ;   it  may  signify 
first   the  animal   soul,   then   be  put   for   the   man.     Soul,  in 
English,  means  the  man,  in  familiar  language — 4  when  I  went 
into  church  not  a  soul  was  there.'     See  Lev.  xxiii.  30.     In 
deed,  body  sometimes  stands  for  the  whole  man,  as  when  we 
speak  of  somebody  and  nobody :  but  this  is  not  carried  on,  so 
that  these  familiar  words  denote  either  part  of  the  man  :   that 
is,  body  is  not  used  to  signify  soul,   nor  soul  to  signify  body. 
In  Syriac  Nl#237  is  used  as  a  reciprocal  pronoun,  i.e.  for  my 
self,  itself,   &c8. 

377  We9  have  now  only  to  apply  to  q§r)<$  the  general  remark, 

5  Mentioned,  sect.  1. 

6  This  remark  may  seem  to  be  contra 
dicted  by  Lev.  xix.  28,  where  e-n-i  x/'uxfj 
signifies  a  dead  body :   (compare  Deut. 
xiv.  1,)  but  my  idea  is  this;   the  Jews 
had  a  number  of  things  to  observe  with 
regard  to  the  dead,  or  to  dead  men,  and 
therefore  the  expression  for  a  dead  man 
would  occur  frequently;  and  expressions, 
which  occur  frequently  always  get  short 
ened.    In  a  more  formal  way,  the  expres 
sion  for  one  dead,  or  a  dead  man,   was 
^UXT'  T«r*Xfunj*cvTa  ;  but  the  long  par 
ticiple  seems  sometimes  to    have  been 
omitted  for  convenience. 

7  Masclef's  Grammar,  vol.  n.  p.  145. 

8  Hence,  by  the  word  "  He,"  in  our 


Article,  may  be  understood  the  soul  of 
Christ;  though  the  word  "«s,"  1  Cor.  vi. 
14,  in  the  expression  God  "  will  raise  up 
us,"  must  denote  the  body,  (the  soul  is 
re-united  not  raised)  ;  and  Virgil  has  the 
phrase,  animam  sepulchro  condere,  (see 
Ormerod's  Remarks  on  Priestley,  p.  13,) 
yet  mens  cujusque  is  est  quisque. 

9  The  fact  is,  i/'i'X'?  sometimes  is  un 
derstood  to  signify  body  (Lev.  xxi.  1,  11. 
Numb.  v.  2 ;  vi.  6) — sometimes  soul.  In 
like  manner  a3»js  sometimes  signifies,  or 
is  taken  to  signify,  the  grave  (as  will 
appear  by  and  by),  sometimes  the  recep 
tacle  of  departed  spirits.  Accounting  for 
this  fact  is  another  business  :  every  one 
must  use  his  oivn  solution.  My  con- 


ARTICLES     OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  iii.  4. 

that,  when  a  word  stands  for  any  thing  which  is  compounded,  II. 
it  may,  in  particular  circumstances,  stand  for  either  component 
part.  The  true  sense  of  ct^s1  seems  to  be  the  habitation  of 
man  after  death.  The  habitation  of  a  body  after  death  is  the 
grave;  the  habitation  of  a  soul  after  death  has  unfortunately 
no  name1  in  our  language;  and  that  must  cause  the  more 
words  to  be  used  in  explanation  ;  but  I  think,  that  what  I  laid 
down  is  now  intelligible — that  q  ^vyy  eis  q^ov  may  either 
mean,  the  body  in  the  grave,  or  the  soul  in  the  place  of  de-  378 
parted  souls,  or  both  ;  that  is,  the  man  in  the  state  of  men 
after  death2. 

4.  Nothing  farther  seems  to  be  wanting  in  the  way  of 
explanation ;  therefore  I  will  go  on  to  the  proof.  We  have 
here,  according  to  this  explanation,  only  one  proposition  to 
prove :  '  The  Soul  of  Christ  went  into  the  ordinary  receptacle 
of  departed  human  souls.1  Now,  though  the  Scripture  were 
silent  on  this  head,  this  might  be  presumed,  in  the  same  manner 
as  that  Christ  was  of  the  substance  of  his  mother ;  except  in 
deed  it  appeared  that  Christ  was  to  put  off*  human  nature 
when  he  gave  up  the  ghost.  But  as  the  contrary  appears3,  as 
to  his  state  after  his  resurrection,  either  our  proposition  must 
be  true,  or  Christ  must  have  ceased  to  be  man  on  his  death, 
and  have  again  become  man  upon  his  resurrection :  which  is  a 
supposition  not  to  be  admitted  without  particular  proof;  and 
therefore  our  proposition  is  true. 

But  now  let  us  examine  Acts  ii.  24 — 31,  and  see  whether  it 
does  not  prove  what  we  want  to  demonstrate.  Ver.  25  is  not 

jecture  is  this :  in  every  language,  when    |   man,  after  he  disappears  on  earth, 
a  thing  consists  of  two  parts,  especially 
if  it  be  not  well  understood,  that  word 
which  expresses  the  whole  may  come  to 


1  There  is  a  difference,  which  seems 
neglected,  between  not  having  a  word,  in 
a  modern  language,  answering  to  «<5»;s, 


express  either  part,  as  that  part  happens  I  and  not  having  a  word  expressing  the  re- 

to  be  principally  noticed.     Thus,  Man  j  ceptacle  of  departed  souls.    A  word  an- 

may  mean   either  body  or  soul,  as  in  a  ;  swering   exactly  and    properly   to   n&js 

dead  man,  '  a  wise  man,'  or  '  man  i s  im-  \  would    express    the  habitation   of  man 

mortal.'    Also,  the  word  which  expresses  j  after  death,  and  so  include  the  receptacle 

either  part  may  stand  for  the  u'hole;  and,  j  of  bodies  as  well  as  of  souls.    Lord  King 

as  signifying  the  whole,  may,  as  before,  reckons  a'orjs  to  mean  the  receptacle  of 


denote  either  part  —  as  in,  'not  a  soul,' 
'somebody,'  'nobody.'     Thus  tyvxn  de 


notes  first  the  soul,  then  the  man,  (Gen. 
XLVI.  passim,)  then  the  man  in  that  state 
in  which  his  soul  is  not  noticed  ;  and  so 
may  be  said  to  signify  body.  The  same 
reasoning  applies  to  «nrjv  ;  only  that  is,  I 
think,  primarily  the  place  of  the  dead 


departed  souls — scarce  correctly,  in  my 
opinion. 

2  With  regard  to  body  or  soul  being 
self,  Epictetus  might  be  read,  concerning 
Socrates,  i.  29.  3,    with    31  rs.   Carter's 
Note.     See  Carter's  Epictetus,  p.  86. 

3  Art.  ii.  sect.  2fi. 


IV.  ill.  5,  6\]  THE    DESCENT    INTO    HELL.  G01 

II.  only  "concerning"  Christ,  but  is  spoken  in  his  Person.  Ver. 
2?  is  part  concerning  what  we  call  the  soul,  and  part  about  the 
body;  which  appears  plainly  enough  from  the  verse  itself, 
though  the  expression  for  the  body,  "  thine  holy  one,"  is  the 
title  of  the  whole  man  ;  but  indisputably,  in  my  opinion,  from 
the  resuming  of  the  subject  in  ver.  31,  where  the  word  flesh  is 
used.  The  words  "  soul  in  hell"  \^v  ^  eis  a<W,  cannot  here 
(for  the  same  reason  as  in  our  Article)  have  any  meaning  as  to 

,379  the  body  of  Christ,  or  the  grave.  This  appears,  in  some  mea 
sure,  from  ^rv^rj  being  translated  soul  and  anima  in  the  16th 
Psalm.  Why  is  it  not  translated  body,  or  the  dead,  as  in 
other  places,  but  that  the  sense  requires  soul  ?  St.  Paul,  in 
Acts  xiii.  34 — 37,  speaking  only  of  the  resurrection,  omits 
that  part  of  the  prophecy  which  relates  to  the  soul,  and  men 
tions  only  what  is  liable  to  corruption. 

5.  Voltaire  says4,  "  en  effet,  ni  les  Evangiles,  ni  les  Actes 
des  Apotres  ne  disent  que  Jesus  descendit  dans  renfer."  I  think 
we  have  shewn  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  do  say  that  Christ 
descended  into  hell,  or  what  is  equivalent  to  saying  so.  It  is 
not  indeed  in  the  way  of  direct  narration,  but  by  an  autho 
ritative  interpretation  or  application  of  a  prophecy.  And  it 
must  be  owned,  that  the  Evangelists  do  not  relate  this  descent; 
not  even  St.  Luke,  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It 
is  not  likely  it  should  be  related  in  the  Epistles.  But  yet  I  ap 
prehend  we  have  sufficient  foundation  to  build  our  doctrine 
upon.  The  descent  into  hell  is  an  event  of  which  the  Evange 
lists  could  not  possibly  be  witnesses ;  and  therefore,  that  they 
do  not  relate  it,  is  rather  a  proof  of  their  general  veracity,  than 
of  the  falsehood  of  our  opinion  :  we  value  their  testimony  be 
cause  they  speak5  what  they  have  known.  And  they  have  the 
greater  right  to  our  esteem,  if  (when  it  can  be)  they  forbear  to 
speak  what  they  have  not  known.  Indeed,  the  miraculous 
conception  is  an  event  which  the  sacred  historians  could  know 
only  by  immediate  revelation  ;  but  it  is  one  on  which  so  much 
depends,  that  we  cannot  conceive  how  they  could  have  been  left 
ignorant  of  it.  With  regard  to  the  descent  into  hell,  it  seems 

380  to  me  more  satisfactory  to  be  informed  of  it  by  an  application 
of  a  prophecy,  than  by  a  relation  of  such  a  fact. 

6.  After  the  proof  comes  the  application.  And  first,  we 
are  to  consider,  in  what  sense  a  thinking  man  can  now  give  his 
assent  to  the  Article  under  consideration.  The  principal  nicety 

4  Vol.  xxiv.  quarto,  p.  430.  5  John  iii.  11 ;  xv.  27;  xix.  35.    Lukci.  2. 


602  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  iii.  6. 

is  this:  may  a  person  subscribe  to  the  assertion,  that  Christ  II. 
went  down  into  hell,  who  only  believes  that  his  soul  went  into 
the  receptacle  of  departed  Spirits?    I  apprehend  he  may,  for 
the  following  reasons. 

1.  Any  sense,  which  is  agreed  upon  between  the  person  who 
makes  and  the  person  who  receives  the   declaration,  may  be 
considered  as  a  right  sense.     And  those,  who  may  be  looked 
upon  as  receiving   a  declaration  in  our  present  case,  are   the 
generality    of   learned1    and  judicious  men   in   our   Church. 
What  they  agree  upon  may  be  looked  upon  as  the  sense  of 
the  Church ;  and  the  Church  may  be  considered  as  receiving 
a  meaning,   which  is  offered   to  them,   and  accepted,  though 
tacitly.      Now,  since  Bishop  Pearson's  exposition  of  the  De 
scent  into  Hell,  all  other  eminent  writers  have  agreed  with  him, 
and  adopted  his  opinion  ;    which,   I  think,  agrees  with  ours. 
Whitby  does  this;   and  Dr.  S.  Clarke"',  and  Bishop  Burnet. 

2.  Supposing  our   construction  of  going  down   into  hell 
was  not  known  to  the  compilers  of  our  Articles,  yet  they  are 
not  to  be  supposed  to  have  made  Articles  so  as  to  preclude 
improvements,   or  new  solutions  of  difficulties3.     3.   It  being 
evidently  the  intention  of  our  Church  to  translate  a^,  and 
there  being  no  word  in  English,  French,  or  Dutch4,  answering 
to  it,   the  subscriber  must  have  a  greater  liberty  in  translating 

it  for  himself.  At  present,  for  want  of  such  a  word  in  English,  381 
our  translation  appears  unsteady;  sometimes  the  word  grave  is 
put  for  it,  sometimes  the  word  hell.  4.  But,  though  there  is 
this  variety,  our  sense  of  a^s  will  make  the  passages,  in  which 
it  is  differently  translated,  perfectly  consistent.  In  1  Cor.  xv. 
55,  it  is  grave  in  the  text,  and  hell  in  the  margin :  "  O  grave, 
where  is  thy  victory?"  In  Matt.  xvi.  18,  we  have  "the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail,"  &c.  Whereas  in  Isaiah  xxxviii.  10, 
the  same  words  are  translated  the  gates  of  the  grave.  In  Psalm 
Lxxxix.  48,  we  have  the  word  grave  in  our  Bible,  and  the  word 
hell  in  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  "  Shall  he  deliver  his 
Soul  tywxfiv)  from  the  hand  of  the  grave?"  We  may  also 
compare  Prov.  xxx.  16,  where  one  of  four  things  never  satisfied 
is  "  the  grave"  with  Prov.  xxvii.  20:  "Hell  and  destruction5 


1  Book    III.   chap.   vii.    sect.    3,  4. 
Powell,  p.  35. 

2  Sermons,  vol.  v.  8vo.  Serm.  14. 


4  Lord  King,  chap.  iv. 


5  To  find  these  two  passages  in  the 
LXX.  look  first  between  chap.  xxiv.  and 
xxv. ;  and  then,  after  chap.  xxv.  Prov. 


Book  III.  chap.  ix.  sect.  11.  xxx-  16'  ***   '  SePt-..12ni°'  aPPears 

p.  198 ;  and   Prov.  xxvn.   20,    appears 


page  203. 


IV.  iii.  6.] 


THE     DESCENT    INTO    HELL. 


()03 


II.  are  never  full."     Luke  xvi.  23.   mentions  inhabitants  of 

who  are  good  and  bad — Abraham  who  was  happy,  and  the 
rich  man  who  was  tormented ;  though  a  ^acr/xa  was  between 
them.  And  Rev.  xx.  13,  14,  when  "death  and  heir  (or  the 
grave,  in  the  margin,)  had  "  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were 
in  them,1'  still  these  dead  were  to  be  "judged,  every  man  accord 
ing  to  their  works"  ''A$//e  therefore  does  not  imply  the  goodness 
or  badness  of  its  inhabitants ;  nor  can  it  in  our  sense,  as  '  the 

382  habitation  of  man6  after  death.1  It  seems  to  comprehend 
Paradise  (sometimes  called  Abraham's  bosom)  and  Gehenna/. 
And  our  judgment  seems  confirmed  by  heathen*  authors. 

5.  A  fifth  reason  why  we  may  subscribe  to  this  Article, 
though  we  do  not  understand  the  word  hell  to  mean  the  place 
of  torment,  is  this :  "  ad  inferos"  is  the  expression  in  the 
Latin  Article,  which  is  reckoned  authentic.  "  Inferi"  seems 
to  be  used  in  an  indefinite  sense  for  any  place  to  which  men  go 
after  death,  when  they  disappear ;  though  in  its  etymology  it 
implies  some  subterraneous  place :  it  was  probably  first  used 
when  the  fancy  was,  that  every  thing  belonging  to  man  was 
after  death  disposed  of  under  ground 9.  6.  When  I  say,  there 
is  no  word  in  English  answering  to  Hades,  I  mean  in  English 
at  this  time,  or  at  the  times  when  our  Bible  was  translated,  and 
our  Articles  composed.  We  are  told10,  that  the  very  ancient 
word  hell  (Saxon,  rather  than  English)  had  the  sense  which  we 
have  affixed  to  jt&p ;  and  this  might  always  prevent  another 
word  from  being  used  in  that  sense. 

Bishop  Burnet  gives11  three  senses  of  the  Descent  into 
Hell: — 1st,  Going  to  preach  to  the  spirits  in  prison;  2d,  Burial; 


6  Parkhurst  published  his  Greek  Lex 
icon  in  1769,  and  his  Hebrew  one  in  1778. 
If  one  compares  his  4th  sense  of  x^i/x'/ 
and  his  first  sense  of  «<$j»s,  with  his  sixth 
sense  of  B>S:>  and  his  sixth  sense  of  bKif, 
it  looks  as  if  he  had  changed  his  opinion 
in    the   nine    intermediate    years ;    and 
thought  Ps.  xvi.  10,  and  Acts  ii.  27,  re 
lated  more  to  the  soul,  at  last,  than  he 
had  done  before. 

7  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  14th  Serm.  vol.  v. 
8vo. 

8  See  Pearson  on  the  Creed ;  Nicholls 
on  this  Article ;  Ormerod's  Remarks  on 
Priestley's   14th  sect.  p.  12,   &c.  ;    and 
Parkhurst's  Lexicons. 

9  This  reminds  one  of  Pope's  Indian, 


who  was  to  go  to  some  distant  invisible 
island;  his  faithful  dog  to  bear  him 
company. — Essay  on  Man.  Ep.  1,  line 
95,  &c. 

Children  are  dug  out  of  the  parsley- 
bed — the  parsley-bed  before  an  human 
being  appears ;  the  inferi  after  he  disap 
pears  :  both  underground — out  of  sight. 
Psalm  cxxxix.  14,  about  the  body  being 
formed  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,  is 
to  be  understood  in  this  negative  indefi 
nite  sense,  and  means  only  invisibly 
formed. 

10  See  Lord  King,  chap.  iv.  p.  191. 
Parkhurst  under  «<$))?. 

n  Introduction.    See  Contents. 


604  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  Hi.  7,  8. 

3d,   Our   sense ;   and   thinks   a  person   may  subscribe  in  any  II. 
of  them  ;  but  I  think  I  could  not  subscribe  in  the  second,  as  383 
that  would  annihilate  the  Article,  which  says,  as  Christ  "  was 
buried,  so  also"  he  "  went  down  into  hell.'1 

7-  Mutual  concessions  need  not  be  considered  on  our  present 
subject,  as  our  Church  is  not  engaged  in  controversy  about  it. 

8.  With  regard  to  improvements,  I  will  not  propose  any 
myself,  but  rather  consider  whether  our  language,  about  the 
soul  and  its  local  motion,  can  stand  against  refinements  pro 
posed  by  others.  I  have  not  here  a  proper  occasion  to  go  into 
a  proof  of  the  immateriality  of  the  soul.  For  that  I  refer  to 
Bishop  Porteus^s  Sermons ;  at  the  same  time  I  recommend  the 
pamphlet  of  Mr.  Ormerod,  entitled,  Remarks  on  the  14th  Sect. 
of  Dr.  Priestley's  Disquisitions  on  Matter  and  Spirit. 

I,  for  my  own  part,  have  no  objection  to  using  the  word 
soul,  or  to  saying  it  descends,  or  it  is  in  a  place  of  happiness. 
I  only  describe  facts,  which  must  be  described  very  imperfectly. 
A  dead  body  has  all  its  nerves,  &c.,  but  that  is  gone  which 
makes  it  an  animal.  This  is  fact.  Why  may  I  not  say  its 
soul1  is  departed?  To  prevent  this  something  from  being 
thought  to  be  omnipresent,  I  am  apt  to  speak  as  if  it  was 
somewhere ;  I  am  habituated  to  have  a  place  for  every  thing9 
and  every  action ;  and  so,  as  we  conceive  the  soul  capable  of 
happiness  and  misery,  I  say,  this  soul  is  in  a  state,  or  place,  of 
happiness,  if  I  conceive  it  to  enjoy  happiness.  Not  that  my  lo 
cality  is  strict :  it  is  indifferent  to  me  whether  Paul 2  ascends  384 
into  Paradise,  or  Christ  descends  into  <^/s,  which  includes  Pa 
radise.  To  take  locality  of  spirits  exactly  in  the  same  sense 
with  locality  of  bodies,  is  only  for  the  lowest  vulgar*.  I  would 
adopt  the  notions  of  the  most  improved  philosophy,  not  that 
"falsely  so  called;"  but,  as  to  language,  I  would  \\a\epopular 
language  to  express  things  really  felt,  though  not  philosophi 
cally  viewed :  and  such  language  is  pretty  nearly  as  good  as 

1  In  what  animate  things  dift'er  from  in-  |  see  any  thing  that  certainly  implies  up- 
animate,  TOVTO  etTTi  \jsvxn — Bp.  Pearson  wards,  or  ascent :  dpira^w  is  used  with 
on  Creed,  p.  429,  4to,  quotes  this  from  eo»s  and  eis;  why  not  snatched  away  to, 


Sallust  De  Diis  et  3Iundo,  c.  8.  Cicero 
has,  with  regard  to  souls,  "cum  e  cor- 
pore  excesserint,"  Tusc.  I.  17. 11 ;  efflare 
animam,  ib.  sect.  9.  And  a  man  is  said 
excedere  e  vita.  And  "  animus  in  loots 
coclestibus  habitaturus.  Also,  Ubi  ubi 
sit  animus,  certe  in  te  est."  Tusc.  i.  29. 


or,  as  far  as,  Paradise?  p.  233,  Lord 
King  cites  from  Cic.  Tusc.  i.  Animas 
cum  e  corpore  excesserint,  in  sublime 
ferri. 


3  Use  might  here  be  made  of  the  lan 
guage  concerning  the  rnwrf,  borrowed 
from  sensible  objects.  The  soul  is  dc- 


2  2  Cor.  xii.  4.    In  the  Greek  I  do  not      jected,  why  may  it  not  descend / 


IV.  iv.]  THE     RESURRECTION    OF     CHRIST.  605 

II.  scientifical  language.  *  Iron  is  hof  expresses  all  facts,  as  well 
as  l  iron  raises  heat  in  me?  In  like  manner,  you  cannot  use 
language  more  taken  from  things,  than  that  the  soul  is  departed, 
and  will  be  for  ever  in  a  state  or  place  of  torment  or  bliss ; 
though  it  is  certainly  wise  not  to  deceive  one's  self,  by  fancying 
that  one  has  more  ideas  affixed  to  such  language  (or  to  any 
language)  than  one  really  has. 


385  ARTICLE    IV. 

OF    THE     RESURRECTION    OF     CHRIST. 

CHRIST  did  truly  rise  again  from  death,  and  took  again  his 
body,  with  flesh,  bones,  and  all  things  appertaining  to  the  per 
fection  of  Man's  nature ;  wherewith  he  ascended  into  Heaven, 
and  there  sitteth,  until  he  return  to  judge  all  men  at  the  last 
day. 

Before  we  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  this  Article,  we 
may  as  well  observe,  that  it  does  not  exactly  conform  to  the 
idea  of  an  Article  given  in  the  third 4  Book.  An  Article,  as 
such,  is  not  against  Infidels,  but  against  such  Christians  as, 
allowing  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  interpret  them 
differently  from  ourselves.  Yet,  in  some  enumerations,  we 
cannot5  omit  doctrines,  which  are  essential  and  fundamental, 
merely  because  they  have  not  been  much  contested.  Here,  in 
this  fourth  Article,  we  continue  the  history  of  Christ ;  which 
was  probably  put  into  several  different  Articles,  because  the 
arguments  about  the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  his  Incarnation  had 
best  not  be  confounded  with  those  about  his  Descent  into  Hell 
and  his  Resurrection.  Though  an  Article  is  not  properly  di 
rected  against  infidels,  yet,  if  any  arguments  against  them  are 
introduced  more  conveniently  and  effectually  under  an  Article 

386  than  elsewhere,  (i.  e.  in  OUT  fourth  book  than  in  our  first,)  the 
general  nature  of  an  Article  need  not  prevent  our  introducing 
them.     What  we  shall  have  to  say  on  the  sixth  Article,  con 
cerning  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  will,  in  a  good  measure, 
suit  all  sects  of  Christians;  and  therefore  might  have  come  into 

4  Chap.  ix.  sect.  9.  5  Ibid. 


606 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  iv.  l. 


the   first   Book.      Nevertheless,  some  opinions   of   Christians  II. 
might  be  aimed  at  by  those,  who  compiled  this  Article. 

We  may  also  previously  remark,  that  it  will  be  best  to 
keep  the  subject  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  distinct  from 
that  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  or  the  general  resurrection. 
They  are  nearly  connected  in  most  writings  which  treat  of 
either  of  them ;  but  it  seems  best  to  keep  them  so  far  separate, 
as  to  throw  the  latter  into  an  Appendix  to  this  Article. 

1.  These  things  being  premised,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
our  adhering  to  our  old  plan  in  treating  this  Article.  We  be 
gin  therefore  with  history. 

The  history  of  the  Article  now  before  us,  regularly  and 
fully  treated,  should  consist  of  four  parts;  relating,  1.  to  the 
Resurrection  of  Christ;  2.  to  his  Ascension;  3.  to  his  Session, 
as  it  is  called ;  and  4.  to  his  coming  to  Judgment. 

With  regard  to  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  the  Docetce,  as 
holding  that  our  Saviour  had  not  a  proper  material  body,  must 
of  course  deny  that  he  rose  from  the  grave,  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  words;  but  moreover,  they  are  said  to  have  insisted 
more  frequently  than  common  on  this  part  of  his  history.  With 
the  Docetae  we  may  join  all  those  who  are  called  Allegorists  ! 
— all  those  who  interpreted  facts  allegorically.  Under  Doceta?  387 
are  included  the  Manicheans. 

Of  Cerinthus  and  his  followers  Augustin 2  says,  "  Jesum 
hominem  tantummodo  fuisse,  nee  resurrexisse  sed  resurrectu- 
rum,  asseverantes."  But  I  would  always  wish  any  single  au 
thority  respecting  an  early  heretic  to  be  compared  with  other 
authorities  as  collected  by  Lardner. 

I  might  have  mentioned  the  prejudices  which  St.  Paul  had 
to  encounter,  when  he  preached  Jesus  and  the  resurrection, 
from  doctrines  of  heathen  philosophers  and  the  sects  of  the 
Jews ;  but  these  are  more  nearly  connected  with  the  subject  of 
the  general  resurrection. 

Early  in  the  fifth  century  lived  Synesius,  a  man  of  uncom 
mon  character,  whose  ordination,  as  contrary  to  rules  of  church 
discipline,  has  occasioned  several  books3.  This  man  had  his 


1  See  Rogers  on  the  Articles,  p.  17; 
and  Woolston,  Letter  G,  beginning.  Alle 
gorists  must  take  the  metaphorical  resur 
rection,  mentioned  Rom.  vi.  and  elsewhere, 
to  be  meant  also  in  the  Gospel  narratives  ; 
as  the  Socinians  make  the  creation  by 


Christ  to  be  all  moral.  Woolston  was 
famous  for  allegorizing. 

2  Aug.  Haer.  8.  See  also  Lard.  vol.  ix. 
pp.  325,  326. 

8  This  part  of  ecclesiastical  history  is 
interesting,  especially  to  young  people. 


IV.  iv.  2.]  THE    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST. 


coy 


II.  doubts  about  the  resurrection,  calling  it  \epov  TI  KOI  air  op  far  ov, 

388  which  Bingham 4  well  translates,  "  a  sort  of  mystical  and  inef 
fable  thing."      But  I  do  not  see,  even  from  his  own  expression, 
whether  he  meant  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  or  the  general 
resurrection:   rather,  I  think,  the  latter;   but  they  are  nearly 
related. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  Gaspar  Schwenkfeld,  a  Silesian 
knight,  is  said  to  have  held,  that  Christ  was  not  a  real  man 
after  his  resurrection.  In  general,  he  seems  to  have  magnified 
the  character  of  Christ,  by  supposing  him  something  above 
human ;  though  he  would  not  own  that  he  adopted  the  notions 
of  Eutyches.  Our  Reformers  must  have  known  of  this  man, 
when  they  composed  this  Article,  as  he  was  very  eminent5.  It 
is  said  that  there  are  still  some  of  his  followers 6  in  Silesia. 

2.  Some  notions  of  the  ancients,  with  regard  to  the  ascen 
sion  of  Christ,  have  been  mentioned  under  the  second7  Article. 
We  are  moreover  told 8,  that  Carpocrates  and  Montanus  denied 
the  ascension  of  Christ's  body,  and  maintained  that  only  his 
soul  ascended  into  heaven.  Some  have  wanted  to  set  aside  the 
ascension  entirely;  and,  in  order  to  support  their  notion,  have 
said,  that  the  scriptural  expressions  might  be  interpreted  of 
Chrises  rising,  or  ascending,  from  the  grave.  The  idea,  that 
Christ  ascended  into  heaven  with  flesh  and  bones,  was  con 
demned  in  the  second  Nicene  Council  in  787,  and  in  a  Council 
at  Constantinople  next  before 9  it.  Socinus,  in  order  to  evade 
the  force  of  John  vi.  62,  as  proving  the  pre-existence  of  Christ, 
feigned  what  he  called  a  preparatory  ascension ;  which,  though 

389  not  the  ascension  here  meant,  may  be  mentioned  for  the  sake  of 


Synesius  was  a  man  of  liberal  sentiments, 
and  one  who  indulged  himself  in  innocent 
pleasures:  he  was  so  beloved,  or  esteemed, 
that  the  people  of  Ptolemais  demanded 
him  for  their  bishop.  When  it  was  pro 
posed  to  him  to  be  ordained  for  that  pur 
pose,  he  said,  that  he  could  not  give  up 
his  wife,  nor  play  of  some  sort,  nor  the 
chase.  Moreover,  that  he  held  some  opi 
nions  which  he  could  not  disclaim,  though 
they  would  be  objected  to.  Nor  did  he 
give  up  his  correspondence  with  the 
learned  Hypatia.  Notwithstanding  these 
things,  which  would  be  striking  at  the 
time,  he  was  ordained,  and  made  bishop 
of  Ptolemais,  about  the  year  410.  Pro 
bably  men  had  an  high  notion  of  his 
abilities,  pleasing  qualities,  integrity,  and 


honour.  His  Epistles  are  extant :  the 
105th,  out  of  which  I  read  some  passages 
at  Lecture,  is  pleasing  :  the  part  about 
refusing  to  put  away  his  wife  is  beautiful 
and  noble.  Mention  of  him  may  be 
found  in  Lardner's  Works,  by  the  Index. 

4  Antiquities,  4.  3.  3. 

5  Yet  he  is  not   mentioned  amongst 
those  against  whom  our  Articles   were 
composed,  in  the  Politia  Eccles.  Angl. 
A  single  notion  would  not  entitle  him  to 
mention. 

0  Mosheim,  8vo,  vol.  iv.  p.  317;  or 
Index.    He  died  in  1561. 

7  Art.  ii.  sect.  4  and  15. 

8  Philaster,  Theodoret.    See  Rogers. 

9  See   Bingham's  Apology.    Works, 
fol.  vol.  ii.  p.  724. 


608 


ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.   IV.   3,  4. 


distinctness*.  Christ  ascended,  according  to  Socinus,  before  II. 
he  began  his  ministry,  in  order  to  be  instructed  in  the  nature 
of  it.  Was  ever  any  fancy  more  arbitrary  ?  how  unsuitable  to 
a  sect  pretending  eminently  to  reason  and  common  sense  !  I 
apprehend  that  this  strong  hold  of  Socinianism  has  been  aban 
doned. 

3.  With  regard  to  the  session  of  Christ,  we  may  mention, 
that,  in  the  time  of  Tertullian,   there  were  some  who,    though 
they  believed  in   the  ascension,    thought  that  what  is  said    of 
sitting  implied,  that  the  mere  body  of  Christ  was  placed  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  void  of  animation,   or  emptied  of  Christ2, 
as  they  used  to  speak  ;   and  of  course  not  employed  in  the  ex 
ercise  of  government.    The  idea,  that  dignity  and  pre-eminence 
are  shewn  by  indolence  and  freedom  from  care  and  action,   has 
frequently  been  favoured.       It  seems  to  have   been  a  funda 
mental  idea  with  the  Epicureans. 

4.  There3  have  been  some  different  notions  held  with  re 
gard  to  Christ's  returning  "  to  judge  all  men  at  the  last  day." 
I  believe  this  is  called  by  some  the  second  coming  of  Christ, 
but  that  expression  has  sometimes  a  more  extensive  meaning4. 
The  horror  of  eternal  punishment  has  set  several  persons  on 
imagining  ways  of  avoiding  it.     Very  early  Christians  thought, 
that  the  Being,   who  was  the  Author  of  Christianity,  was  too  390 
benevolent  to  condemn5  any  one  :  and  some  evaded  the  dread 
ful  sentence  of  eternal  fire  even  by  fatality6  itself;  insomuch 
that,  in  some  very  ancient  creeds,  there  was  what  seems  now  a 
redundancy  of  expression   on  this  head,  which  has  since  been 
discontinued1. 

The  Manicheans  have  been  said  to  deny  a  future  judg 
ment  ,-  but8  Lardner  has  brought  passages  from  their  writings, 
found  in  the  controversial  works  of  Augustin,  which  prove  the 
contrary.  Yet  they  seem  to  have  denied  the  eternity  of  hell- 
torments,  or  to  have  maintained  that  all  men  will  be  saved 
Jinally.  It  is  owing  to  the  moderation  of  our  Church  that  we 


1  Op.  Socini,  torn.  n.  p.  380,  col.  2. 
See  also  Pearson  on  Creed,  p.  108,  fol.  or 
216,  4to. 

2  Tert.  de  Carne  Christi,  p.  24,  cited 
by  Lord  King,  p.  285. 

3  It  might  explain  some  expressions, 
to  notice  the  German  and  Popish  notions 
of  the  bodily  ubiquity  or  omnipresence  of 
Christ.     (See   Rogers  on   the  Art.  and 
Reformatio  Legum,   de   Trin.   cap.   iv. 


Chambers's  Diet,  under  Ubiquity.  Also, 
for  corporal  ubiquity,  Fulke's  Rhem. 
Test,  on  Matt.  xxvi.  sect.  4).  Though 
this  properly  belongs  to  Art.  xxviii. 
sect.  10. 

4  Hurd    on     Prophecy,     opening    of 
Serin.  V. 

5  Lord  King,  Cr.  p.  290. 

c  Ib.  p.  304.  7  Ib.  p.  313. 

8  Works,  vol.  in.  pp.  440,  478. 


IV.  iv.  5.]  THE     RESURRECTION    OF     CHRIST. 


609 


II.  are  not  called  upon  to  subscribe  to  the  eternity  of  hell-tor 
ments9;  nay,  we  are  not  required  even  to  condemn  those  who 
presume  to  affirm  that  all  men  will  be  finally  saved,  though 
that  was  required  in  the  last  Article  of  Edward  vi.,  and  I 
think  reasonably.  Though  one  were  inclined  to  hope,  with  Dr. 
Hartley 10,  that  all  men  will  be  happy  ultimately ;  that  is,  when 
punishment  has  done  its  proper  work  in  reforming  principles 
and  conduct ;  yet,  to  affirm  it  must  always  be  presumption11. 
A  sect  which  subsisted  in  this  country  at  the  time  of  the  Re 
formation,  called  the  Family  of  Love,  or  Familists,  held  that 
wicked  men  will  be  annihilated1* ',  as  did  some  Gnostics  of  old. 

391  5.  It  is  natural  here  to  mention  the  Millennarians,  or  Chili 
asts,  who  believed  that  Christ  would  come  to  reign,  with  his 
saints,  a  thousand  years  upon  earth  ;  and  would  gratify  them 
with  sensual  pleasures.  This  was  to  take  place  before  the  ge 
neral  resurrection,  though  there  must  be  a  resurrection  of  saints 
previous  to  it.  This  notion  was  founded  on  the  20th  chapter 
of  Revelation13;  and  one  can  scarce  wonder,  that  the  passage 
should  occasion  some  expectation,  though,  as  all  prophecies 
should  be  interpreted  by  their  completion,  it  must  be  rash  to 
act,  or  dispute  in  a  peremptory  manner,  upon  any  prophecy  not 
completed.  Irenseus  and  Lactantius  were  Chiliasts;  and  Ne- 
pos,  a  Bishop  in  Egypt.  Some  passages  in  Lactantius  are 
sanguine  enough  143  though  his  ruling  ideas  seem  to  be  peace  and 
concord15.  When  the  Chiliasts  came  to  imagine  particulars,  I 
suppose  there  was  a  great  difference  between  them.  Cerinthus 
is  said,  by  some,  to  have  taught  that  the  pleasures  of  the  millen 
nium  would  be  very  gross16.  But  others,  of  respectable  cha 
racter,  conceived,  that,  though  sensual,  they  would  not  be 
vicious — that  they  would  consist  in  eating  and  drinking,  and 
The  name  of  the  New  Jerusalem™  being  used, 


marriage ' 

9  There  is  an  expression  of  the  Atha- 
nasian  Creed  about  "  everlasting  fire" 
but  it  seems  only  a  quotation  of  Matt, 
xxv.  41 ;  so  must  be  understood  in  the 
same  manner. 

10  On  Man,  sect.  v.  prop.  94.   See  also 
Origeniani,  in  Aug.  Haer.  43. 

11  The  title  of  the  Article,  "  All  men 
shall  not  be  saved  at  length,"  seems  in 
accurate;  as  I  think,  the  meaning  is,  It 
is  not  to  be  affirmed  that  all  men  shall  be 
saved  finally,  or  after  a  definite  time. 
This    appears    from    the    body    of   the 

VOL.  I. 


Article. 

li2  See  Lord  King,  p.  40J.  Though  this 
may  belong  to  the  Appendix,  yet  it  an 
nuls  future  judgment. 

13  Add  1  Thess.  iii.  13;  iv.  14,  &c. 

14  Lard.  vol.  in.  p.  114.    Lact.  de  Vita 
Beata,  conclusion.     Lard,  under  Diony- 
sius  of  Alexandria,  who  opposed  Nepos 
about  the  millennium. 

15  Quieta  et  placida  erunt  omnia. 

16  Aug.  Haer.8. 

17  Lard.  vol.  in.  p.  112. 

18  Rev.  xxi.  2. 

39 


610 


ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION'. 


those  who  were  inclined  to  Judaism  flattered  themselves  with  II. 
the  hopes  of  a  literal1  restoration  of  the  Jewish  polity.  This 
makes  Eusebius2  say,  that  the  promises  made  to  the  saints  had  89% 
been  expected  (by  Nepos)  to  be  fulfilled  "  in  a  Jewish  sense;11 
and  this  makes  the  Article  of  Edward  vi.  say,  that  the  Millenn- 
arii,  or  they  who  encouraged  the  revival  of  their  doctrine,  cast 
themselves  headlong  "into  a  Jewish  dotage."  In  the  time  of 
our3  Charles  n.  some  fanatics  were  called  Millennarii;  but  they 
were  low  and  illiterate  persons,  not  such  as  would  take  any 
pains  to  follow  ancient  models,  or  even  to  study  the  Scriptures 
with  exactness.  Mosheim  seems  not  to  speak  of  Millennarians 
after  the  time  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria.  And  the  accurate 
Tillemont*  seemed  to  think  there  had  nothing  passed  about 
Millennarians  from  the  time  of  Augustin  ;  though  in  his  own 
time5  he  heard  that  they  were  reviving  in  Sweden  and  Brand- 
enburgh. 

6.  I  am  not  aware  that  any  thing  more  need  be  said  on 
this  Article,  of  the  historical  sort.  I  should  therefore  proceed 
to  an  explanation  ;  but  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  thing 
explanatory  to  be  offered  here,  which  will  not  be  better  offered 
hereafter.  Something  might  be  said  of  the  nature  of  the  session 
of  Christ,  and  of  the  expression,  "  the  last  day  ,-"  but  if  any 
little  difficulties  relating  to  them  are  thrown  into  the  form  of 
objections,  they  will  be  more  thoroughly  discussed,  and  will  fall 
in  better  with  the  course  of  our  reasoning. 

7-  We  come  then  to  the  proof  of  the  propositions  contained 
in  the  Article,  which  may  here,  as  in  the  historical  part,  be  re 
duced  to  four.  1.  Christ  did  rise  from  the  dead  as  a  being 
truly  human.  2.  He  did  ascend  into  heaven,  without  any 
change  in  his  person.  3.  His  session  was  from  that  time  till  3$3 
his  return  to  judge  the  world.  4.  He  will  return  to  judge  all 
mankind.  The  proofs  of  these  propositions  must  be  wholly 
taken  from  Scripture;  the  authenticity  of  which  must  there 
fore  be  taken  for  granted,  or  must  be  considered  as  having 
been  proved.  This  is  mentioned,  because  Bishop  Burnet,  on 
this  Article,  goes  back  to  first  principles. 

We  must  distinguish,   as  before,  between  direct  and  in- 


1  Lard.  vol.  in.  p.  114. 

2  L.  vii.   c.  24,   quoted  by   Lardner, 
vol.  in.  p.  103.    And  Jerom  says,  speak- 
ing  of  the  Apocalypse,  "  quam  si  juxta 
literam   accipimus,  judaizandum   est;" 
&c.    The   Allegorists  then   were    those 


who  did  not  judaize;  as  appears  by  Lard  - 
ner's  account  of  Dionysius  of  Alex- 
andria. 

3  Hume,  1660. 

4  vol.  n. 

5  He  died  1698,  aged  71. 


IV.  iv.  8— 11.]      THE    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST.  Gil 

II.  direct  proof.  The  direct  proof  in  this  Article  will  consist  of 
texts  of  Scripture,  such  as  are  in  general  so  well  known,  that 
some  of  them  perhaps  need  not  now  be  adduced,  were  it  not  for 
the  sake  of  regularity.  The  indirect  proof,  or  answering 
objections,  will,  in  our  present  subject,  occupy  more  of  our 
attention6. 

8.  1.  For  the  direct  proof  of  Christ's  resurrection^  I  refer 
to  the  24th  chapter  of  Luke's  Gospel,  verse  3 — 6,  39,  40,  42,  43; 
John  xx.  28,  and  preceding.  Acts  ii.  29 — 31 ;  and  Acts  xiii. 
30 — 37.  Also  to  1  Cor.  xv.  5 — 8.  To  which  might  be  added 
a  passage  or  two,  which  takes  the  Resurrection  for  granted, 
and  reasons  upon  it;  such  as  Rom.  vi.  4;  1  Cor.  xv.  13;  Col. 
iii.  1,  &c.;  or  Rom.  iv.  25;  2  Tim.  ii.  8. 

394  9-  2.  For  proof  of  the  Ascension,  we  may  refer  to  Mark 
xvi.  19;  Luke  xxiv.  51 ;  and  Acts  i.  9,  &c.  One  might  also 
add  (or  take  first)  John  xx.  17,  and  vi.  62 ;  and  afterwards, 
Eph.  iv.  8;  Col.  iii.  1,  &c.;  Heb.  vi.  19,  20. 

10.  3.  For  proof  of  Christ's  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  we  may  have  recourse  to  Mark  xvi.  19;   Acts  ii.  34,  &c.; 
Ephes.  i.  20,  &c.;   Heb.  i.  3,  and  13.    And  afterwards,  to  Eph. 
ii.  6;   Col.  iii.  1 — observing,  that  the  sitting  does  not  imply  in 
dolence,  but  government. 

11.  4.  The  proofs  of  Christ's  returning  to  judgment  are 
numerous.      The  25th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  from 
the  31st  verse,   is  a  capital  one.      The  24th  chapter  has  two 
senses7.     Mark  viii.  38.      Add  John  v.  22;   Acts  i.  11;   x.  42; 
xvii.  31;   Rom.  xiv.  10;  or  2  Cor.  v.  10:  to  which  should  be 
added  some  texts  expressing  Christ's  coming,  or  his  returning, 
more  absolutely  or  independently,  as  that  is  an  expression  of 
the  Article :   such  as   1  Cor.  xv.  23 ;   1  Thess.  iv.  15  ;  and  iii. 
13;    v.  2,  3,  23;    James  v.  7,  8 ;    2  Pet.  iii.  4.  &c.     Though 
Acts  i.  11   does  express   the  return  of  Christ;  so  does  Matt, 
xxv.  31. 


6  Bp.  Burnet's  proof  is  addressed  to 
infidels ;  ours  will  only  shew  to  them  that 
the  Resurrection  of  Christ  is  affirmed  in 
Scripture.  Their  disbelief  of  the  gospel 
history  will  be  combated  in  our  indirect 
proof,  (indeed  Bp.  Burnet  obviates  diffi 
culties)  ;  though  even  that  must  be  only 
looked  upon  as  an  occasional  supplement 
to  our  reasoning  in  the  first  Book.  Our 
scriptural  proof  is  applicable  to  Wool- 
Stan's  arguments,  as  he  only  wants  to  set 


aside  the  literal  sense,  in  favour  of  the 
mystical  (see  the  opening  of  his  fith  Let 
ter,  and  my  account  of  him,  Book  I. 
chap.  xvi.  sect.  7);  and  his  Jewish 
Rabbi,  in  his  6th  Letter,  argues  on  the 
absurdity  of  Christ's  Resurrection,  from 
the  account  of  it  given  by  the  Christian 
Evangelists  (p.  5).  And  indeed  any  per 
son  may  argue  upon  an  account  of  facts, 
as  given  by  those  who  believe  them. 
7  See  Book  I.  chap.  xvii.  sect.  10. 

39 2 


612 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  iv.   12—14. 


12.  All  the  proof  requisite  for  the  question  respecting  the  II. 
Millennium^  is  only  to  recollect  what  has  been  said  before  about 
the  premature  application  of  prophecies;  and  to  observe,  with 
Bishop  Gibson^)  that  there  is  no  appearance  that  the  pleasures 

of  such  a  state,  whenever  it  may  take  place,  will  be  sensual; 
and,  with  Lardner2,  that  impurity  is  represented  as  a  disquali 
fication  for  the  state.  Whether  the  enjoyment  of  sensual 
pleasures,  not  reckoned  vicious,  can  be  called  impurity,  in  any 
sense,  is  a  question  about  which  all  men  may  not  be  perfectly  395 
agreed.  The  marriage-service  of  the  Church  of  England  calls 
married  persons  "  undefiled  members  of  Christ's  Body3." 

13.  Having   then  gone   through  a  direct   proof  of  the 
doctrines  of  our  Article,   we  come  to  the  indirect;   or  to  the 
answering  of  objections.     These  have  been  numerous :   we  must, 
as  in  the  second  Article,  make  a  selection. 

This  part  of  our  subject  has  been  more  fully  treated  since 
the  time  of  Bishop  Burnet,  than  before  it ;  by  the  publication 
of  Mr.  West's  book  on  the  Resurrection,  and  of  the  pamphlet 
ascribed  to  Bishop  Sherlock,  called  the  Tryal  of  the  Witnesses, 
&c.  which  has  something  particularly  interesting  in  its  style 
and  plan.  It  was  written  against  the  objections  of  Mr.  Wool- 
ston,  of  whom  we  once  gave  an  account4. 

14.  1.   The  first  objection  I  shall   mention,  may  be  thus 
expressed  :    It  is  more  likely  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  stolen 
by  his  disciples  than  that  it  revived.     This  is  the  objection 
which  the  Jews  made  at  the  time ;   nay,  St.  Matthew  tells5  us, 
that  the  priests  thought  it  worth  while  to  bribe  the  guards  to 
testify  the  fact,  on   which  it  is  founded;    and  that  the  peo 
ple   were  credulous  enough,  or  enough  prejudiced,  to  believe 
the  fact,  and   so  adopt  the  objection.     Certainly,  if  the  dis 
ciples  of  Christ  wanted  to  use  any  deceptions,  and  by  any  false 
appearances  make  men  believe  what  they  themselves  knew  to  be 
false,  they  could  much  more  easily  do  that,  if  they  had  the 
body  of  Christ,  than  if  it  was  in  the  possession  of  their  enemies, 
so  that  it  might,  at  any  time,  be  produced  against  them.     But 
how  could  they  procure  the  body  ?   they  would  not  attempt  to  3Q6 
force  a  guard  of   sixty  men.      No,   say  the  Jews,  it  was   not 


1  P.  209. 

2  Vol.  in.  p.  112.    Rev.  xxi.27;  xxii. 
14,  15. 

3  See  about   Paphnutius,  Art.  xxxii. 
sect.  3.    Cohabiting  with  a  virtuous  wife, 


he  said,  ( though  a  monk  himself)  is  chas 
tity  itself. 

4  Book  1.  chap.  xvi.  sect.  7. 

•'  Matt,  xxviii.  12— In. 


IV.  iv.    15.]  THE    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST.  613 

II.  force  that  was  used,  it  was  sleight  and  cunning;  the  guards 
were  asleep.  Could  the  disciples  expect  that  ?  or  be  prepared 
to  take  advantage  of  it  ?  or,  would  they  dare  to  run  the  hazard 
of  awakening  them  ?  But  is  it  credible  that  they  were  asleep  ? 
a  guard  of  sixty  men  all  asleep  !  or  even  a  sixth  part  of  them  ! 
Nay,  suppose  they  were  asleep,  can  they  be  admitted  as  compe 
tent  witnesses  of  what  passed  during  their  slumbers  ?  No 
more,  I  think,  need  be  said  on  this  objection0. 

15.  2.  It  has  been  objected,  that  Christ  was  not  in  the 
grave  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to  answer  the  predictions,  or 
that  he  rose  too  soon.  Then  he  did  rise  ?  We  might  say, 
that  is  the  principal  thing.  Whether,  in  an  affair  so  very 
extraordinary,  some  circumstances  were  just  as  might  be  ex 
pected,  is  a  matter  of  secondary  consequence.  If  a  man  only 
performed  a  journey,  or  any  very  ordinary  act,  and  performed 
it  too  soon,  or  too  late,  it  might  not  answer  its  purpose ;  but, 
if  Christ  did  really  rise  from  the  dead,  the  main  purpose 
must  be  answered,  whether  we  can  clear  up  all  circumstances 
or  not. 

But  you  reply,  though  we  could  not  find  out  the  fallacy  of 
evidence  any  other  way,  yet,  if  we  find  inconsistencies  in  it, 
they  invalidate  the  whole.  It  had  been  said  beforehand7,  that 
Christ  would  be  in  the  grave  three  days,  or  three  days  and 
three  nights  ;  whereas  he  was  but  one  whole  day.  We  answer, 
there  are  in  Scripture  four  different  forms  of  expressing  the 
time  during  which  our  Lord  was  to  lie  in  the  sepulchre :  he 
397  was  to  rise  the  third8  day;  in  three9  days;  after  three10  days; 
and  it  is  said,  "the  Son  of  Man"  shall  be  "three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  heart11  of  the  earth."  Now  these  expressions 
must  mean  the  same  thing,  if  the  Evangelists  invented  their 
narrations ;  because  no  persons  ever  write  inconsistencies  pur 
posely,  or  except  where  something  escapes  them,  or  seems 
likely  to  escape  others  ;  never,  where  the  inconsistencies  must 
be  glaring  to  every  eye.  And,  if  they  mean  the  same  thing, 
there  is  no  inconsistency  amongst  them1".  And  our  remark  may 


6  See  Tryal,  &c.  pp.  36,  43. 

7  Matt.  xii.  40;   Matt.  xx.   19,  and 
other  passages ;  or  Matt,  xxvii.  63,  with 
parallels.  8  Matt.  xx.  19. 

9  Matt,  xxvii.  40.  10  xxvii.  63. 

11  Matt.  xii.  40:  the  word  three  is  a 
leading  word  in  them  all. 

12  It  has  occurred  to  me,  that  the  com 
mon  phrases  about  a  musical  octave  might 


seem  contradictory,  or  inconsistent,  when 
they  were  not  so ;  and  much  in  the  same 
manner  with  the  phrases  about  a  number 
of  days.  An  octave  comprehends  three 
thirds  and  one  second;  the  mind  sums 
these  into  eleven:  yet  it  is  sometimes 
said,  an  octave  contains  only  seven  tones, 
even  reckoning  as  tones  the  two  semi 
tones. 


614 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  iv.  15. 


be  extended  to  the  seeming  inconsistency  between  these  expres-  II. 
sions  and  the  fact.  Suppose  the  Evangelists  to  be  inventing, 
and  so  writing  what  would  best  promote  their  cause,  nothing 
so  easy  as  to  Jit  the  event  to  the  prediction.  It  must  be  as 
easy  to  make  Christ  rise1  on  the  fourth  day  as  on  the  third. 
Upon  a  supposition  then  of  the  narratives  being  feigned,  the 
fact  was  agreeable  to  the  predictions  in  that  one  sense  in  which 
they  would  all  be  understood.  No  one  can  say  these  accounts 
are  inconsistent,  and  therefore  invented  ;  for,  if  they  had  been 
invented,  they  would  not  have  admitted  the  inconsistencies  now 
under  consideration. 

If  we  put  the  supposition,  that  the  narratives  were  not 
feigned,  we  are  rid  of  our  principal  difficulty  ;  we  have  only  to 
consider  the  question  before  us  as  a  critical  question,  which  we 
should  be  glad  to  resolve,  if  we  can ;  but  which  we  may  leave  398 
as  a  difficulty  in  suspense,  if  we  cannot.  On  this  footing,  it  is 
comfortable  to  remark,  that,  when  we  say  two  events  were  dis 
tant  three  days,  we  may  mean  inclusively,  reckoning  into  the 
number  three,  the  days  on  which  both  events  happened :  and 
the  very  existence  of  the  word  inclusively,  in  this  sense,  shews, 
that  this  mode  of  reckoning  is  common :  this  will  be  admitted 
still  more  easily  of  the  expression  "  the  third  day."  Yet,  if 
we  compare  the  63d  and  64th  verses  of  Matt,  xxvii.  we  shall 
see,  that  this  expression  means  the  same  thing  with  "  after 
three  days ;" — which  will  be  confirmed  by  observing,  that,  in 
John  xx.  26,  "  after  eight  days"  means  the  day  se^nnight,  as 
we  call  it :  the  two  days  meant  were  (most  probably)  two  suc 
cessive  Sundays 2.  The  only  expression  remaining  therefore  is, 
"  three  days  and  three  nights :"  but  this  means  the  same  as 
"  three  days :"  Evening-morning  is  a  Jewish  expression  for  a 
day3 — three  evening-mornings  for  three  days;  and  " three  days 
and  three  nights"  means  only  the  same  as  three  ( evening-morn 
ings,''  or  three  day-nights,  which  may  be  reckoned  inclusively 
as  well  as  three  days.  Our  word  day  is  of  itself  often  taken 
for  the  whole  twenty-four  hours.  If  we  had  a  compound  word 
something  like  rjfjicpovvKTiov,  day-night,  three  day-nights  would 
seem  familiar,  and  reckoning  them  inclusively  would  occasion 


1  Woolston,  Letter  6th,  p.  13. 

2  We    might  add    the  reckoning   of 
the  day  of  circumcision,  Tryal,  p.  49. 
Gen.  xvii.  12,  "  eight  days  old."    Luke 
i.  59.     Lev.  xii.  3,  "  in  the  eighth  day  :" 
and   Phil.  iii.   5.    Luke  ii.  21,   "  when 


eight    days    were    accomplished."     To 
which  add,  that  (14th  night)  fortnight 
in  English,  is  quinxe  jours,  fifteen  days, 
in  French. 
3  Gen.  i.  passim. 


IV.  iv.   16.]  THE     RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST.  615 

II.  no  difficulty:   such  a  word  would  have  been  equivalent  to  the 

expression  '  three  days  and  three  nights.1 

3<)9  That  the  time  elapsed  was,  in  the  event  before  us,  expressed 
by  the  Jews  according  to  what  has  been  said,  appears  from  the 
words  of  Cleopas.  "  To  day  is  the  third  day  since  those  things 
were  done4."  The  reckoning  after  the  event  is  the  same  as 
before  it. 

But  it  has  been  urged5,  that,  if  the  body  of  Christ  had 
laid  a  day  longer,  witnesses  would  have  attended  on  the  spot, 
who  would  have  disproved  our  present  account.  In  this  argu 
ment,  something  in  the  Gospels  is  allowed  to  be  true : — Christ 
had  been  really  buried,  and  his  body  missing  on  the  third  day. 
If  so,  either  it  must  have  been  stolen,  or  it  must  have  revived  : 
the  former  having  been  disproved,  the  latter  remains  true. 

16.  3.  It  has  been  objected,  that  Christ  appeared  only 
to  select  witnesses6.  Their  being  chosen  has  probably  an  air 
of  art  and  contrivance.  But  surely  there  is  no  fact  which  re 
quires,  in  order  to  its  being  credible,  that  all  men  who  lived 
when  it  happened  should  have  seen  it.  In  the  case  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  supposing  it  really  to  have  happened, 
it  was  proper  that  those  should  be  witnesses  who  had  not  only 
eyes  to  see,  but  candour  to  embrace  truth  on  sufficient  evidence, 
and  resolution  to  persist  in  the  profession  of  it  in  spite  of  all 
dangers.  Those  who  ascribed  the  miracles  of  Christ  to  Beel 
zebub,  might  have  rejected  even  sufficient  evidence  of  the  re 
surrection.  Those  who  would  have  shrunk  at  persecution,  or 
betrayed  their  cause,  like  Judas,  for  money,  would  have  been 
improper  witnesses,  however  true  the  accounts  committed  to 
them. 

But,   might  not  some  indifferent  persons   have  been   wit- 

400  nesses  ?    Not  if  the  fact  was  true.    What  man  fit  to  be  a  witness 

could  have  known  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  to  be  real,  and  have 

been  indifferent  about  the  success  of  his  religion  ?   Such  an  one 

O 

must  have  embraced  the  Christian  religion,  and  then  he  would 
have  been  as  partial  as  any  other  disciple. 

We  are  not  here  considering  the  force  of  the  evidence  in 
favour  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  for  that  we  refer  to  the 
iGtli  chapter  of  the  first  Book:  we  are  only  considering  one 
particular,  the  selection  of  certain  persons  for  the  purj>ose  of 
bearing  testimony  to  it. 

4  Luke  xxiv.  21.  5  Tryal,  p.  37-     Woolston,  p.  13. 

6  Acts  x.  41.  Tryal,  pp.  55,  and  76. 


616 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  iv.  17. 


The  Jewish  magistrates  have  been  mentioned1  as  those  to  II. 
whom  Christ  ought  to  have  shewn  himself;  but  to  say  this 
seems  at  least  presumptuous.  It  is  right  to  see  whether  we 
have  sufficient  evidence;  but  we  cannot  fix  upon  any  specific 
evidence,  or  mode  of  proof,  and  say,  that  God  ought  to  have 
made  use  of  that.  A  fact  may  be  true,  and  we  may  have  rea 
son  to  think  it  so,  though  many  sources  of  proof  may  have  been 
left  untouched.  If  the  fact  before  us  be  true,  we  need  inquire 
no  farther.  Magistrates  are  often  worldly-minded  men,  and 
want  to  keep  things  in  their  old  course  at  all  hazards.  Some 
of  them,  though  moved  by  the  arguments  of  the  Apostles,  might 
have  gone  away  sorrowful,  like  the  young  man  in  the  gospel ; 
or,  like  Agrippa,  have  been  only  almost  persuaded  to  embrace 
Christianity. 

Bishop  Sherlock,  or  the  author  of  the  Tryal  of  the  Wit 
nesses2,  makes  an  important  observation  on  this  matter.  He 
suggests,  that  Christ  took  a  solemn  leave  of  the  Jews  when  he 
spoke  what  is  written  at  the  close  of  the  23rd  chapter  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel;  that  he  had  then  finished  his  commission  to 
the  Jews,  as  their  Messiah;  that,  after  his  Resurrection,  he  401 
opened  a  new  commission,  addressed  to  the  world  at  large. 
When  that  was  once  opened,  all  preference  of  them  was  at  an 
end — all  men  became  upon  the  same  footing ;  and  therefore  if 
magistrates,  as  such,  were  to  be  made  witnesses  of  sacred  truth, 
newly  revealed,  the  Roman  magistrates  should  have  had  the 
preference.  Indeed,  the  Jewish  had  been  found*  too  much 
biassed  to  be  entrusted  with  such  truth  as  Jesus  had  to  offer. 
But  the  argument  of  the  infidels  would  prove  too  much ;  that 
no  country,  no  age,  should  be  left  without  original  testimony4. 

17.  4.  The  next  objection  seems  as  if  it  might  proceed 
from  a  mind  neither  disingenuous  nor  captious.  If  we  take  the 
incidents  of  the  life  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection,  there  is 
something  in  them  uncommon  and  extraordinary.  They  give 
him  the  air  and  appearance  of  not  being  so  strictly  and  properly 
man 5  as  he  had  been  before  his  death.  Some  incidents  and 
circumstances  must  be  here  enumerated.  The  "  noli  me6  tan- 
gere;"  the  two  disciples  not  knowing7  Christ  in  going  to  Em- 


1  Tryal,  pp.  55,  and  77. 

2  Page  79. 

3  Witness  their  whole  conduct  on  the 
trial:  though  Pilate  thought  Christ  inno 
cent,    they  cried   out,    "crucify  him." 


They  ascribed  too  his  miracles  to  the 
prince  of  the  devils.  4  Tryal,  p.  80. 

6  See  sect.  1,  the  notion  of  Schwenk- 
feld. 

6  John  xx,  17.  7  Luke  xxiv. 


IV.  iv.  17-]  THE    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST. 


617 


II.  maus:  his  being  said  to  appear  "in  another8  form," — to  vanish 
out  of  their9  sight, — to  stand  in  the  midst,  when  the  doors  were19 
shut  for  fear  of  the  Jews.  At  the  mountain  in  Galilee,  "  some11 
doubted."  Very  few  transactions  are  recorded,  considering  our 
Lord  passed  forty  days  on  earth  after  his  resurrection ;  and 
seemingly  only  three  12  appearances.  To  which  must  be  ad  led, 

402  the  ascension  of  the  body  of  Christ.     I  do  not  remember  seeing 
it  noticed  in  any  objection,  that  the  wounds  of  our  Lord  were 
fresh,  though  he  walked  13  to  Emmaus,  and  suffered  Thomas,  in 
a  week's  time,  to  thrust  his  hand  into  the  scar  u  in  his  side. 

Before  we  attempt  to  account  for  these  appearances,  we 
must  observe,  that  their  not  being  perfectly  accounted  for,  is 
not  a  sufficient  reason  why  the  gospel  history  should  be  reject 
ed  :  all  that  we  have  a  right  to  require  is  sufficient  evidence  on 
the  whole. 

1.  If  we  might  suppose  that  Christ  had  the  glorified  or 
spiritual  body  of  a  man,  after  his  resurrection,  it  seems  as  if 
none  of  these  incidents  or  circumstances  would  give  us  much 
trouble 15.  Their  probability,  on  such  a  supposition,  and  our 
ignorance  of  the  nature  of  such  body,  would  partly  satisfy,  and 
partly  silence  us ;  we  should  receive  what  is  written,  and  wait 
for  a  clear  understanding  till  we  ourselves  were  clothed  with 
our  heavenly  tabernacle.  That  the  human  body,  in  its  exist 
ence  in  a  future  state,  is  of  such  a  sort  as  to  be  properly  called 
a  "spiritual  body,"  is  clear  from  many  texts  of  Scripture  ;  but 
they  will  most  properly  be  produced  when  we  treat  of  the  ge 
neral  resurrection.  That  Christ  did  assume  his  spiritual  body 

403  before  his  ascension,  is  a  supposition  somewhat  countenanced 
by  1  Cor.  xv.  50,  "  Flesh  16  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  king 
dom  of  God,  neither    doth   corruption   inherit   incorruption." 
This  is  a  general  assertion;  we  have  no  reason  to  think  Christ 


8  Mark  xvi.  12.        9  Luke  xxiv.  31. 

10  John  xx.  19,  25. 

11  Matt,  xxviii.  17. 

12  John  xxi.  14. 

13  The  wounds  of  Christ  are  mentioned 
several  times  in  the  Tryal. 

14  John  xx.  27. 

15  Does  not  Epiphanius  seem  to  have 
thought    that    Christ  had  his  spiritual 
body   after  his  resurrection  ?    Haer.  64. 
sect.  64.     (Origeniani).  Works,  vol.  u. 
p.  538,  about  Origeri's  notion  of  1  Cor. 
xv.   7;    though   Epiphanius   is  writing 
against    Origen    in  the  passage    above 


mentioned.  Origen  had  denied  the  re 
surrection  of  the  body,  or  had  been  said 
to  do  so  :  Epiphanius  obviates  his  objec 
tions  by  saying,  that  the  body  of  Christ, 
after  his  resurrection,  was  of  such  rarefied, 
aetherial  matter,  that  it  could  pass  through 
a  door,  &c. 

16  Here  "  flesh  and  blood"  means  what 
is  commonly  so  called ;  the  natural  body ; 
though  even  the  spiritual  body  may  be 
said  to  consist  of  all  parts  which  are 
essential  to  an  human  body.  But  it 
would  be  premature  to  dwell  on  this  just 
at  present. 


618 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  iv.  17. 


an  exception  to  it.  In  Phil.  iii.  21,  we  are  told,  that  Christ  II. 
"  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto 
his  glorious  body ;"  but  we  are  not  told  the  time  of  his  as 
suming  that  glorious  body.  If  it  was  not  before  his  ascension, 
when  could  it  be  ?  not,  I  should  think,  at  his  transfiguration  ; 
the  change  in  Christ's  body  made  then,  seems  to  have  been 
external  and  superficial1  only,  and  partial.  John  does  not 
record  the  transaction ;  the  three  other  Evangelists  all  speak  of 
the  garments  being  changed;  Mark  of  the  garments  only;  and 
the  other  two  mention  nothing  in  the  body  or  person  of  our 
Saviour  as  changed  but  the  face  or  countenance.  By  analogy 
we  should  judge,  that,  as  Christ  was  perfect  man  in  life,  in 
death,  and  in  hades,  so  he  would,  after  his  resurrection,  assume 
such  a  body  as  all  men  will  assume  after  the  general  resurrec 
tion.  Besides,  he  is  represented  (l  Cor.  xv.  20,  and  Acts  xxvi. 
23)  as  "  the  first-fruits ;"  and  (Col.  i.  18)  as  "  the  first-born 
from  the  dead."  Ignatius  confirms  this,  Ep.  ad  Trallianos, 
p.  34,  Oxon.  1709.  See  Rutherforth's  Charges,  p.  87-  It 
must  not  be  asked  here,  whether  Lazarus  and  others2  had  spi 
ritual  bodies  after  they  arose  from  the  grave.  They  were  to  die 
again,  in  the  common  manner  of  other  men ;  and  to  take  their 
spiritual  bodies  at  the  same  time  with  the  rest  of  their  species. 
I  do  not  know  that  this  hypothesis  is  inconsistent  with  Scrip-  404 
ture,  or  with  our  Article3;  but  it  will  probably  be  rejected, 
from  a  general  idea  of  its  being  too  bold  and  fanciful.  If  men 
come  to  particular  reasons  for  rejecting  it,  they  will  urge  seem 
ingly  one  of  these  three  things.  1.  That  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  scriptural  expression  adopted  by  our  Article,  about  flesh 
and  bones4.  Or  2.  That  the  time  in  which  it  supposes  the 
body  of  Christ  to  have  been  changed,  is  much  less  than  that 
between  death  and  the  general  resurrection.  Or  3.  That,  ac 
cording  to  it,  Christ  might  not  be  strictly  the  same  man  before 
and  after  his  resurrection.  At  least,  a  moment's  consideration 
of  these  three  things  may  have  its  use. 

1.  The  spiritual  body  of  an  human  being  must  \\avejlesh 
and  bones,  as  well  as  his  natural  body ;  at  least,  so  we  must 
always  express  ourselves.  We  have  no  idea  of  any  human  body 
without  flesh  and  bones :  they  are  constituent  parts  of  it,  and 


1  Take  the  accounts,  as  in  Macknight's 
Harmony,  sect.  72. 

2  Matt,  xxvii.  52. 

3  When  I  first  offered  this  hypothesis, 


it  was  my  own  thought ;  but  it  seems  to 
have  been  (like  many  original  thoughts) 
mentioned  in  antiquity. 
1  Luke  xxiv.  39. 


IV.  iv.   I?.]         THE     RESURRECTION     OF     CHRIST. 


619 


II.  essential  to  it.  In  whatever  sense,  therefore,  we  say  that  we 
have  bodies  in  heaven,  in  the  same  sense  we  must  say  that  we 
have  whatever  are  the  constituent  parts  of  bodies.  Flesh  and 
bones  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  the  same  things  in  natural  and 
spiritual  bodies ;  but  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  change 
our  terms  in  speaking  of  them. 

2.  The  time  during  which  Christ  was  in  the  grave  seems 
sufficient  for  his  changing  his  natural  into  a  spiritual  body. 
St.  Paul  says5,  "we  shall  all  be  changed  in  a  moment,,  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye." 

If  any  one  preferred  the  hypothesis,  that  Christ  assumed 

405  his  spiritual  body  gradually  between  his  resurrection  and  his 
ascension,  we  should  have  no  occasion  to  object.      Such  an  one 
would  watch  whether  the  things  related  of  Christ  become  gra 
dually  more  spiritual.      St.  Thomas's  handling  of  his  body, 
John  xx.  27,  was  about  a  week  after  his  resurrection.     In  John 
xxi.  13,  it  is  not  expressly  affirmed  that  he  eat,  whatever  may 
seem  to  be  implied:  "Jesus  then  cometh,  and  taketh  bread, 
and  giveth  them,  and  fish  likewise." 

3.  Though  it  were  true  that  Christ  changed  his  natural 
body  for  a  spiritual  one  before  his  ascension,  yet  he  might,  in 
common  propriety  of  speech,  be  spoken  of  as  still  the  same 
man;  or,  the  body  he  had  after  his  resurrection  might  be  called 
"  his  body"     Whenever  we  make  such  change,  we  must  con 
tinue  each  the  same  man;  otherwise  we  could  not  be  susceptible 
of  rewards  and  punishments,  supposing  the  Deity  a  just  Being. 
Identity  is  so  far  from  excluding  all  change,  that,  in  common 
questions  concerning  it,  it  presupposes  some6;  and  when  iden 
tity  is  destroyed,  seems  to  depend  more  upon  convenience  and 
custom  of  language,  than  upon  the  quantity  of  change.      A 
reptile  may  undergo  less  change  in  becoming  an  insect,  than  a 
man  undergoes  while  he  continues  to  be  called  the  same  man  ; 
or,  I  should  rather  say,  than  another  animal  of  its  own  size 
undergoes  without  being  accounted  to  lose  its  identity. 

By  the  way,  it  may  be  considered,  whether  this  notion  of 
identity  will  not  sufficiently  obviate  those  difficulties  which 
arise  from  the  parts  of  man's  body  becoming 7  parts  of  vegeta- 

406  bles,  and  so  of  animals  which  feed  upon  those  vegetables;  or 
even  of  other  men. 


r>  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  r»2. 

fi  When  you  ask,  whether  such  a  thing 
continues  the  same,  the  meaning  is,  can 


it  be  called  the  same  notwithstanding 
such  and  such  changes? 
7  Voltaire,  vol.  xxvi.  4to,  p.  411. 


620  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  iv.  17. 

It  does  not  then  appear  impossible,  that  Christ  might  as-  II. 
sume  his  spiritual  body  before  his  ascension,  notwithstanding 
his  body  is  said  to  consist,  in  part,  ofjlesh  and  bones;  notwith 
standing  he  lay  but  a  short  time  in  the  grave,  and  must  under 
go,  on  that  supposition,  some  very  material  changes  }. 

But  still  we  must  remember,  that  the  Scripture  does  not 
plainly  inform  us  of  such  an  event ;  and  therefore  we  must  not 
rest  here.  We  must  inquire  farther,  how  the  incidents  and 
circumstances  just  now  mentioned,  as  giving  an  air  of  some 
thing  extraordinary  to  the  person  of  Christ,  may  be  accounted 
for. 

2.  The  power,  by  which  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead, 
must  be  accounted  a  miraculous  power:  may  we  then  be  allow 
ed  to  suppose  that  such  a  power  was  exercised  after  his  resur 
rection,  as  well  as  in  effecting  it  ?  if  we  may,  our  present  diffi 
culties  will,  in  a  great   measure,  receive  a  solution.     And  a 
miraculous   power   does  not  interfere  with   the   humanity  of 
Christ,  which  is  now  our  principal  concern2 ;  nor  is  it  for  us  to 
say,  a  priori,  when  God  shall,  and  when  he  shall  not,  make  use 
of  such  a  power.      The  history  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
may  be  a  true  history,  and  yet  it  might  please  God  to  use  mira 
culous  power  in  some  incidents  subsequent  to  it. 

3.  But  some  are  most  inclined  to  solutions  which   keep  407 
clear  of  every  thing  supernatural.      "  Touch  me  not,  for  I  am 
not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father,"  (  may  mean  only3,  pass  not 
this  precious  time  in  salutations  (such  as  embracing  the  knees); 

it  will  be  some  time  before  my  ascension  takes  place ;  there 
will  be  opportunities  to  shew  your  rejoicing,  when  there  is  no 
particular  business  to  prevent  it.1  Again,  two  disciples  might 
walk  with  Jesus,  side  by  side,  and  not  know  him ;  they  might 
never  look  at  him4,  or  not  see  him  clearly,  especially  in  the 
dusk  of  the  evening ;  their  minds  might  be  intent  upon  some 
thing  else 5 ;  he  would  speak  in  a  style  different  from  that  in 
which  they  had  usually  heard  him  speak :  why  not  purposely  ? 
ind  yet,  when  lights  were  brought,  at  supper,  and  they  sate 

Bp.  Pearson,  on  the  words  "  From  j   spersed  through  the  life  of  Christ.     He 


i 

the  dead"  quotes  Greg.  Horn.  26,  in 
Evang.  "corpus  suum  et  ejusdem  naturae 
et  alterius  gloria."  The  nature  is  proved 
by  the  handling  ;  the  new  glory  by  the 
entering  in  while  the  doors  were  shut. 
Creed,  p.  517,  first  edit. 

3  There  are  miraculous  events  inter- 


passes  safe  through  a  multitude,  he  walks 
upon  the  sea,  &c. 
8  See  Tryal  of  Witnesses,  p.  68. 

4  See  Macknight's  instance  (p.  647)  of 
Odyssey,  Book  19th,  (or  T),  line  479. 
And  another,  Tryal,  p.  70. 

5  Luke  xxiv.  14,  15. 


IV.  iv.    I?.]          THE    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST.  621 

II.  opposite  to  him,  they  might  know  him.  As  to  their  eyes  being 
holden,  ver.  16,  (Luke  xxiv),  and  opened,  ver.  31,  that  is  only 
Jewish  phraseology;  it  means  nothing  supernatural.  Minerva 
held  the  eyes  of  Penelope,  that  she  did  not  know  her  husband. 
His  being  in  another  form,  ^op(prj,  might  mean  only  the  effect 
of  a  different  dress.  His  vanishing,  or  becoming  invisible 
(acpavTos  e'yeVero),  might  only  be  his  retiring  out  of  the  roomfi, 
while  they  were  attending  to  something  else,  expecting  him  to 
return.  He  might,  consistently  \vith  the  Scripture  expressions, 
enter  by  the  door  in  a  common  way  :  who,  that  would  stop  the 
Jews,  would  stop  him  ?  Though  it  seems  strange  that  any  of 
his  disciples  should  doubt  at  the  interview  in  Galilee7,  yet  it 

408  might  only  mean  had  doubted,  (Grotius)  ;  or  it  might  only 
be  some  of  inferior  note — some  who  had  not  been  at  Jerusalem, 
had  not  weighed  the  evidence,  and  whose  minds  were  possessed 
with  ideas  of  ghosts  and  apparitions.  The  greatness  of  so 
wonderful  an  event  might  terrify  men  out  of  their  judgment, 
and  make  them  distrust  even  their  senses.  It  is  better  they 
should  doubt  than  be  too  hasty  to  believe.  Though  no  great 
variety  of  transactions  is  recorded,  as  having  passed  during  the 
forty  days,  yet  we  find  nothing  wanting  in  particular.  No 
Evangelist  ever  composed  a  journal;  and  detached  facts,  if  of  a 
wonderful  nature,  have  a  romantic  air  and  appearance.  What 
could  Christ  do  more  in  his  then  situation,  though  it  would 
produce  no  variety  of  incidents,  than  employ  himself  in  "  speak 
ing  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God8?"  Mack- 
night  reckons  up  seven  appearances  which  he  made,  in  all.  It 
may  moreover  be  considered  whether,  if  the  Evangelists  had 
invented  their  histories,  they  would  have  abstained  from  throw 
ing  in  more  incidents  in  this  part  of  their  fable :  whether  we 
should  not  have  had  prodigies,  discourses,  enigmas,  in  abun 
dance.  Of  the  Ascension  we  will  speak  by  and  by. 

As  to  the  wounds  of  Christ,  we  know  so  little  of  a  miraculous 
revival,  that  we  are  not  able  to  give  a  solution  of  their  being 
healed,  on  our  present  plan  of  avoiding  every  thing  supernatural. 
It  does  not  seem  likely  that  a  body  should  be  supernaturally 
restored  to  life,  and  the  wounds  remain.  Whatever  events  were 
natural  and  ordinary,  we  are  sure  that  the  restoration  of  life 


6  Macknight. 

7  Lardner   says    that    Theophylact  is 
well  worth  reading  on  this  passage.     See 
his  Cred.  on  Juvencus,  Works,  vol.  iv. 
p.  297-    (Theophylact  on  Matt,  xxviii. 


17.     In  Evangelia,  p.  183.)     It  seems  a 
good  exposition. 

8  Acts  i.  3.     See  also  John  xx.  30. 
"  Many  other  signs,"  &c. 


622 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  iv.  17- 


and  health  to  the  body  of  Christ  was  not  one  of  them.  He  II. 
was  "  put  to  death  in  the  fash,"  but  was  "  quickened  by  the  409 
Spirit*.™ 

Thus,  here  are  three  ways  of  solving  the  difficulties  pro- 
posed.  It  is  possible,  that  some  might  make  use  of  more  than 
one  of  them  ;  i.  e.  might  allow  some  of  the  incidents  to  be  com 
mon^  some  miraculous,  and  others  to  imply  a  spiritual  body. 
But  let  every  one  consider  whether  the  remark  before  made  on 
the  time  of  Christ's  rising  might  not  be  extended  to  every  one 
of  them ;  whether  they  might  not  all  have  been  easily  avoided 
by  any  one  who  was  inventing  a  narration  merely  to  serve  some 
purpose.  If  so,  the  conclusion  is,  as  before,  the  narratives 
which  we  have  are  not  fictitious. 

I  mentioned2  the  ascension  of  Christ  as  one  of  those  things 
which  gave  our  Saviour's  body  an  air  of  being  not  perfectly 
human.  This  will  come  best  under  a  separate  observation ; 
especially  as  our  Article  has  been  objected  to,  on  account  of 
what  it  affirms  respecting  the  ascension  of  Christ3.  It  has 
been  mentioned  before4,  that  two  Councils  condemned  the  no 
tion  of  our  Article,  that  flesh  and  bones 5  were  parts  of  that 
body  wherewith  Christ  ascended.  These  Councils  may,  on  that 
account,  seem  to  consider  the  human  body  of  Christ  as  incon 
sistent  with  his  ascension ;  but  I  should  rather  say,  that  they 
only  adopted  our  first  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  preference  to 
any  other;  that  is,  they  thought  that  Christ  must  assume  his 
spiritual  body  some  time  before  his  ascension.  When  they  de 
creed  against  flesh  and  bones  being  admitted  into  the  heavenly 
mansions,  they  most  probably  meant  to  speak  of  the  body  in  its  410 
present  corruptible  state ;  as  St.  Paul  does,  when  he  speaks  of 
"  flesh  and  blood  6."  And  indeed  7  there  may  be  some  ambigu 
ity,  when  the  parts  of  the  body  are  mentioned  :  there  may  be  a 
doubt  whether  the  natural  body  is  spoken  of,  or  the  spiritual; 
as  we  must  use  the  same  terms  for  both  ;  which  can  only  be 
resolved  by  the  connection  and  design  of  the  expressions.  I 
think  we  have  sufficiently  shewn,  that  any  component  parts  of 
an  human  body,  which  are  necessary  to  our  idea  of  such  body, 
may  be  spoken  of  as  belonging  either  to  heavenly  or  earthly 
bodies. 


1  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  2  P.  617. 

3  Binghara,  vol.  II.  p.  724,  part  of  his 
Apology.  4  P.  572. 

R I  follow  Bingham's expression,  though 
I  do  not  see  bones  mentioned  in  the  acts 


of  the  Councils.  6  1  Cor.  xv.  50. 

7  This  conjecture  is  confirmed  by  the 
expressions  of  the  Council  (or  Councils, 
for  the  latter  adopts  the  words  of  the 
former.) 


IV.  iv.    18.]  THE     RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST.  6'23 

II.  In  the  ascension  then  of  our  Lord,  he  might  have  an  hu 
man  body,  though  it  were  a  spiritual  one ;  or,  in  other  words, 
the  difficulty  we  are  speaking  of  may  admit  of  our  first  solution. 
Can  the  second  or  third  be  applied  to  it?  First,  could  the  ascen 
sion  be  miraculous  ?  I  should  rather  say,  it  might  be  superna 
tural  ;  it  might  be  above  any  law  of  our  nature,  and  yet  it 
might  not  be  a  violation  of  any  law;  which  every  miracle  seems 
to  be.  Neither  do  I  see  how  the  third  solution  can  be  of  any 
use  to  us.  The  ascension  of  Christ  cannot  be  an  event  of  an 
ordinary  nature ;  it  is  wholly  out  of  the  reach  of  our  common 
experience. 

I  shall  not  mention  any  more  objections,  as  what  may  be 
strictly  called  such;  but  I  said,  that,  instead  of  directly  explain 
ing  some  expressions  of  the  Article,  I  would  propose  any  diffi 
culty  contained  in  those  expressions,  in  the  form  of  objections, 
that  the  explanation  of  them  might  be  the  more  distinct. 

18.  1.  The  first  of  these  explanatory  objections  may  be 
this:  Our  Article  speaks  of  Christ  as  sitting  on  the  right  hand 
411  of  God;  whereas  he  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  standing8  at 
the  right  hand  of  God.  Whatever  difficulty  there  is  here,  is  a 
difficulty  of  Scripture,  for  we  have  shewn  that  Christ  is  fre 
quently  described  as  sitting ;  which  however  does  not  afford  a 
reason  why  it  should  be  passed  over.  In  truth,  all  we  want,  at 
present,  is  to  improve  our  own  conceptions.  We  must  there 
fore  again  apply  what  was  formerly9  laid  down.  When  we  use 
our  own  language  concerning  any  thing  spiritual  or  heavenly 
— any  thing  which  we  express,  not  properly,  but  in  borrowed 
terms — we  mean  something  of  the  following  sort: — when  we  say 
the  hand  of  God,  we  mean  that  cause,  in  the  Supreme  Being, 
of  certain  effects,  which,  if  produced  by  man,  we  should  ascribe 
to  his  hand.  When  we  speak  of  the  providence  of  God,  we 
mean  that  cause  in  God  of  effects,  which,  in  man,  would  be  as 
cribed  to  foresight.  In  like  manner,  when  we  speak  of  sitting, 
we  mean  that  state  of  things  which  would  produce  sitting  in 
man;  and  so  of  standing.  By  Chrisfs  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  we  mean  that  state  of  dignity,  authority,  equality 
of  rank,  which,  according  to  our  customary  notions,  would  oc 
casion  a  person  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  a  great  personage. 
By  Chrisfs  standing,  Acts  vii.  55,  that  state  of  shewing  protect 
ing  care  over  a  dying  servant,  which  would  cause  the  same  per 
son,  if  man,  to  stand.  The  postures  therefore  are  only  different 

8  Acts  vii.  55.  9  Book  I.  chap.  xix.  sect.  5. 


624 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  iv.  19,  20. 


circumstances;  and  the  descriptions  of  them  no  more  contra-  II. 
diet  one  another,  than  a  man  contradicts  himself  by  sometimes 
giving  orders  to   his  servant,  and  sometimes  paying  him  his 
wages.     Tell  a  painter  to  draw  a  picture  of  a  prince  exercising 
his  authority,  and  another  of  the  same  prince  shewing  a  com 
passionate  tenderness  for  a  servant  who  has  been  wounded  in 
his  defence,  giving  him  no  directions  about  particular  postures;   412 
and  he  will,  of  course,  draw  his  prince  sitting  in  the  former 
picture,  and  in  the  latter  standing l. 

19.  2.  Another  explanatory  objection  may  be  this:   Why 
should  our  Article  use  a  different  language  from  every  one  of 
our  three  Creeds,  with  regard  to  the  persons  whom  Christ  is  to 
judge?   The  Article  says,  "  all  men;"  the  Creeds,  "the  quick 
and  the  dead"     But  certainly  the  expression  of  the  Article  is 
the  less  ambiguous ;  and  therefore,  if  any  thing  more  be  said 
upon  the  difference,  it  will  be,  not  so  much  to  explain  the  Arti 
cle,  as  the  Creed,  or  rather  the  Scriptures ;   for  from  Scripture 
the  expression  of  'quick  and  dead1  is  derived2.     Nevertheless, 
as  we  subscribe  to  the  Creeds,  it  may  not  be  improper  briefly  to 
observe,  that  by  "the  quick"  are  probably  meant  those  who 
will  be  "alive3"  at  the  time  of  Christ's  coming  to  judge  the 
world  :   though  I  should  not  blame  any  one  who  thought  it  was 
not  intended  to  declare  positively  that  any  would  be  then  alive ; 
but  only  to  affirm,  that  Christ  would  judge  "  all  men"  whether 
any  happened  to  remain  alive,  or  all  had  paid  the  debt  of  mor 
tality.      To  those  who  favour  this  sense,  the  Creeds  and  the 
Article  coincide. 

20.  3.   The  last  explanatory  objection  I  shall  mention  is 
the  following :   Is  there  not  a  material  difference  between  the 
Article,  which  speaks  of  Christ  as  sitting  only  till  the  last  day, 
and  the  Creed,  which  describes  him  as  one  "  whose  kingdom 
shall  have  no  end  ? " 

The  short  answer  is,  that  our  Article  seems  only  to  reach, 
as  it  were,  to  the  day  of  judgment,  but  the  Creed  to  that  eter 
nity  which  follows  it;  in  contradiction,  perhaps,  to  the  error  of  413 
Marcellus  and  Photinus,  who  thought  "the  end*"  (so  I  con 
ceive)  to  mean  the  end  of  Christ's  kingdom ;  which,  in  one 
sense,  it  is.  The  general  judgment  is  at  a  distance  not  to  be 
defined  by  us;  but  it  will  happen,  and  then  is  the  end  of  time — 


1  See  Pearson  on   the  Creed,  p.  560, 
first  edit. 

2  Acts  x.  42.  2  Tim.  iv.  1.  1  Pet.  iv.  5. 


3  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  17.    1  Cor.  xv.  51. 

4  1  Cor.  xv.  24.    See  Pearson  on  the 
Creed.    And  Art.  ii.  sect.  7. 


IV.   iv.  21 2.'*.]         THE    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST.  625 

II.  "the  last  day:"  but  a  proper  eternity  follows;  and  one,  to 
our  views,  unvaried.  When  judgment  has  been  executed  (so  I 
understand),  "then  cometh  the  end  " — the  end  of  God's  dis 
pensation  towards  man  ;  the  end  therefore  of  all  Christ's  medi 
atorial  offices.  As  prophet,  he  will  no  longer  instruct b ;  as 
priest,  he  will  no  longer  avert  punishment;  as  king,  he  will  no 
longer  protect.  Sitting  may  be  no  longer  ascribed  to  him  : 
yet,  as  God  the  Son,  he  may  reign  for  ever ;  nay,  he  may, 
though  it  be  unintelligible  to  us,  still  retain  some  connection 
with  humanity* — still  enjoy  the  rewards  of  his  sufferings  and 
obedience.  I  own  this  connection  with  humanity,  and  enjoy 
ing  rewards,  to  be  above  my  comprehension ;  and  1  believe  it 
to  be  above  the  comprehension  of  every  man  ;  but  I  can  see 
clearly  that  it  is  our  business  to  keep  in  view,  at  the  same  time, 
what  St.  Paul  delivers  to  the  Corinthians  7,  and  what  St.  John 
teaches  in  his  Book  of  Revelation  s :  the  joint  effect  of  which 
passages  I  can  no  better  express  than  by  saying,  after  the  last 
day,  God  "  shall  be  all  in  all" — shall  rule  no  more  by  a  Medi 
ator,  but  immediately  9.  Christ,  as  he  who  was  Mediator,  shall 
be  subject — shall  no  more  retain  even  his  kingly  office;  yet,  as 
God  the  Son,  he  "  shall  reign  for  ever  and  ever,"  King  of  kings, 
«  and  Lord  of  lords  10." 

414  21.  Thus  we  have  gone  through  our  history,  explanation, 
and  proof.  Our  Application  will  be  short.  In  giving  assent, 
a  question  might  arise,  how  far  any  one  was  at  liberty  to  under 
stand  what  is  said  of  the  body  of  Christ,  of  his  spiritual  body. 
But,  as  every  human  body,  natural  and  spiritual,  must  have 
something  to  be  called  flesh",  &c.,  and  as  identity^2  of  person  is 
consistent  with  the  change  of  body  from  natural  to  spiritual,  it 
seems  as  if  he  who  assents  might  either  take  the  body  of  Christ 
(and  its  parts)  as  denoting  its  ordinary  corruptible  state  on  earth, 
or  as  being  the  same  with  our  future  spiritual  bodies,  or  as  be 
ing,  indeterminately,  either  one  or  the  other,  as  a  truly  human 
body  would  be  in  like  circumstances. 

22.  Mutual  concessions  may  here  be  passed  over,  for  the 
same  reason  which  was  mentioned  under  the  third  Article ;   be 
cause  our  Church  is  not  engaged  in  controversy  concerning  it. 

23.  Improvements  may  arise  from  new  objections,  as  they 
have  done  before.      It  is  scarce  possible  to  answer  a  new  and 


5  Pearson.  6  Art.  ii.  sect.  2fi. 

7  1  Cor.  xv.  24—28. 

8  Rev.  xi.  15. 


9  Whitby  in  1  Cor.  xv.  28. 

'-o  Rev.  xix.  16. 

11  Sect.  17-  "  Ibid. 


VOL.   I.  40 


626  ARTICLES  OF  RELIGION.     [IV.  iv.  Append. 

specious  objection,  without  diving  deeper  into  a  subject — with-  II. 
out  making  something  more  clear  and  definite — without  getting 
a  more  perfect  knowledge  of  the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  a 
stronger  relish  for  its  excellencies.  The  harmonies  in  the  parts 
of  Scripture  which  give  an  account  of  the  Resurrection,  and 
which  should  assign  the  series  of  events  as  they  really  happened, 
are  as  yet  unsettled.  Macknight's  is  very  ingenious;  but  Lard- 
ner  is  dissatisfied  with  it  in  some  respects.  A  comparison  of 
these  two,  and  others,  would  scarce  fail  of  producing  improve 
ment  in  one  way  or  other. 


APPENDIX  TO  THE   FOURTH  ARTICLE.  415 

OF    THE     RESURRECTION    OF    THE     BODY. 

THERE  is  an  intimate  connection  between  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  and  the  general  resurrection.  St.  Paul  reasons  from 
the  one  to  the  other1;  and  indeed2  this  appears  from  several 
things  already  mentioned.  On  this  account,  we  may  say  some 
thing  of  the  latter  here,  as  well  as  any  where ;  and  it  cannot 
be  considered  as  a  digression  to  do  so,  because  we  assent  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  in  two  of  our  Creeds,  and  to  the  resur 
rection  of  the  dead  in  the  third ;  and  to  these  Creeds  we  assent 
in  the  eighth  Article. 

No  one  can  think  attentively  concerning  the  nature  of  man, 
without  inquiring  what  will  be  his  fate  after  death.  Amongst 
the  philosophers  of  old,  the  Stoics  thought  that  the  soul  con 
tinued  after  death,  though  it  was  corruptible  (<p9aprov)  ;  but 
the  Epicureans  rejected  totally  the  notion  of  a  future  state. 
Accordingly,  when  St.  Paul  preached  "Jesus  and  the  resur 
rection"  at  Athens3,  the  Stoics1  said  they  would  hear  him 
again,  but  the  Epicureans  "  mocked  V 

Amongst  the  Jews,  a  similar  difference  prevailed  between 
the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees.  Bayle 6  calls  the  Stoics 
Pagan  Pharisees;  and  Josephus  calls  the  Pharisees  Jewish  416 
Stoics.  "  The  Sadducees~  say  there  is  no  resurrection,  neither 
angel  nor  spirit"  (human  soul)  ;  "  but  the  Pharisees  confess 
both."  The  Essenes,  favouring  Oriental  notions,  thought  the 


Cor.  xv.  13,  49. 


2  Phil.  Hi.  21.    Col.  i.  18,  &c. 

3  Acts  xvii.  18,  32. 

4  Parkhurst,  ZTWUCOC. 


5  For  the  notions  of  modern  philoso 
phers,  see  Bp.  Porteus's  Charge  of  this 
year,  1794. 

6  Under  Epicurus.        7  Acts  xxiii.  8. 


IV.  iv.  Append.]  THE   RESURIIECTION.  627 

II.  body  would  be  annihilated  after  death,  though  the  soul  would 
be  rewarded  or  punished. 

Permit  me,  as  I  have  not  mentioned  it  before,  just  to 
observe,  that  the  three  Jewish  sects  were  confined  to  what  we 
call  the  gentry,  and  collectively  opposed  to  the  people;  whereas 
our  sects  reach  to  the  very  bottom  of  the  people  :  and  I  have 
a  notion  none  but  people  of  liberal  education  were  Stoics,  &c.s 
The  Pharisees  were  grave  and  regular,  and  in  general  were 
magistrates:  opulent  rather  than  noble,  yet  numerous;  stately, 
but  preserving  order  ;  adopting  maxims  established  amongst 
the  people,  yet  not  very  popular ;  or  however  rather  respected 
than  beloved.  The  Sadducees  were  but  few  in  number:  rather 
affecting  the  importance  of  high  rank  than  of  opulence  ;  too 
insolent  and  haughty  to  bear  the  drudgery  and  formality  of 
administering  justice;  affecting  to  think  in  a  singular  manner, 
without  low  prejudices  ;  and  to  despise  all  established  notions, 
as  vulgar  and  barbarous.  This  is,  in  substance,  the  representa- 
417  tion  of  Josephus ;  but  perhaps  something  is  to  be  allowed  for 
his  being  a  Pharisee  himself. 

With  regard  to  our  present  subject,  we  may  say,  in  general, 
that  mere  philosophers  have  been  too  ready  to  give  up  the 
body  to  destruction  in  the  grave ;  and  the  people  have  been  too 
ready  to  transfer  the  present  imperfections  to  the  future.  How 
Christianity  has  reconciled  the  dictates  of  reason  with  the  feel 
ings  of  simple  nature,  is  well  shewn  by  Bishop  Sherlock9. 

To  come  then  to  Christianity.  It  seems  to  be  well  proved, 
by  Lord  King  and  Dr.  Rutherforth,  that  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  or  Jlesh  was  a  part  in  orthodox  confessions  of  faith, 
from  the  earliest  times10:  even  Clemens  Romanus  and  Ignatius 
mention  it  in  their  artless  manner",  but  in  a  manner  sufficiently 
plain.  As  to  heretics,  we  may  be  sure,  that  such  as  we  have 
called  Oriental  would  be  invincibly  averse  to  every  thing  mate- 

8  Mr.  T.  Twining,  the  translator  of  ;  men,  and  ignorant  mob — patricians,  and 
Aristotle's  Poetics,  with  original  Notes  !  plebeians  —  b  &ij/j.ot  and  01  eXeuflepoi, 
and  Dissertations,  on  account  of  a  Note  j  &c.  &c.  There  was  very  little  among 


on  his  Sermon,  preached  Sept.  29,  1794, 
says,  in  a  letter  dated  Colchester,  Nov.  7, 
1794,  "In  those  times"  (the  times  of 
Xenophon)  "there  was,  I  think,  nothing 
of  that  moral  and  intellectual  level  among 


them,  1  apprehend,  of  that  respectable 
sort  of  persons  whom  we  call  the  middle 
rank." 

9  Sherlock,  vol.  i.  Disc.  vi.  p.  199.  &c. 
Also  vol.  in.  Disc.  xvii. 


the  members  of  a  state,  which  education,    j        10  Lord  King  on  Creed,  pp.  402,  403. 
reading  (in  consequence  of  printing),  &c.       Dr.  Rutherforth's  4th  Charge, 
has  produced  in  later  times.     All,  then,    j       "  Dr.  Rutherforth's  Charges,  pp.  8«, 
was  divided  nearly  into  educated  gentle-    ;    87. 

40 — 2 


628  ARTICLES   OF  RELIGION.     [IV.  iv.  Append. 

rial  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  accordingly,  Augustin  II. 
says  of  Simon  Magus,  "  negabat  etiam  carnis  resurrectionem ;" 
and  of  Carpocrates,  "  resurrectionem  corporis  simul  cum  lege 
abjiciebat."  Those  who  thought  the  soul  was  taken  from  stars, 
and  restored  to  them,  did,  in  effect,  deny  the  eternal  existence 
of  a  living  body.  Those  who  said  the  resurrection  was 
already  past1,  got  rid  of  their  difficulties  about  matter,  by 
taking  the  moral  comparisons  and  allusions  to  the  resurrection 
as  descriptions  of  plain  fact.  This  is  the  nature  of  allegorical 
interpretation. 

Origen  is  accused  by  Epiphanius  of  having  denied  the  418 
resurrection  of  the  body  (see  Epihan.  Haer.  64.  pp.  532,  539, 
556,  591,  592)  ;  but  an  account  of  one  single  ancient  is  seldom 
to  be  depended  on  without  comparing  it  with  others.  Huet 
has  entered  into  the  subject  of  Origen'' s  opinions,  in  his  Ori- 
geniana.  Cave  gives  a  good  short  account  of  them.  He  holds 
Origen  to  have  maintained,  that  the  souls  of  good  men  shall  be 
clothed  with  bodies  refined  and  ethereal;  and  that  the  souls  of 
bad  men  shall  suffer  punishments  after  death. 

The  orthodox  doctrine,  once  settled,  continued  so  uniform, 
that  we  may  pass  on  to  the  times  of  our  Reformation.  What 
was  the  case  then  appears  best  from  our  Articles  of  1552,  and 
the  Reformatio  Legum  before2  mentioned :  from  which  we 
perceive  that  the  prevailing  error  was  what  we  have  mentioned 
last  of  all,  the  error  of  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus.  There  seem 
also  to  have  been  opinions  concerning  the  sleep  of  the  soul,  and 
the  resurrection  of  the  soul,  which  our  reformers  thought  too 
much  fixed  ;  but  they  are  not  a  part  of  our  present  subject3. 

Of  the  early  Socinians  it  has  been  said,  that  "they4  deny 
the  resurrection  of  these  bodies ;"  which  seems  to  be  a  revival 
of  an  ancient  distinction  of  Origeii's,  between  the  resurrection 
of  a  body  and  the  resurrection  of  this  body  5.  Origen  is  said  to 
have  held,  that  each  man  shall  have  a  body,  but  not  the  same 
he  has  here — he  shall  have  "  aereum  corpus  et  paulatim  in  419 
auras6  tenues  dissolvendum."  Against  this  was  introduced 
into  the  Creed  the  expression  of  the  resurrection  of  \\\e  flesh  ; 
for  even  air  is  a  body.  Indeed,  there  has  but  been  one  diffi- 


1  2  Tim.  ii.  18. 

3  Introduction  to  this  Book,  sect.  4. 

8  See  Reform.  Legum,  de  Haeresibus, 
cap.  12;  and  the  39th  and  40th  Articles 
•(the  last  but  two) of  1552. 

4  Cheynell  on  Socinianisme,  p.  24  ;  but 


I  do  not  see  this  notion  in  the  works  of 
Socinus  ;  judging  by  the  Index. 

5  See   Lord   King  on   the  Creed,  pp. 
401 — 403  ;  from  different  authors. 

6  Lord  King,  p.  401 ;  from  Jerom  on 
Isai.  Lxvi. 


IV.  iv.  Append.]  THE   RESURRECTION.  629 

II.  culty  on  this  subject,  properly  speaking — that  arising  from  the 
gross  impure  nature  of  our  body  here,  and  the  idea,  that  "flesh 
and  blood,"  such  as  ours,  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  people  may  dispute  for  ever,  if,  while  they  main 
tain  that  our  future  bodies  will  be  the  same,  they  allow  that 
the  qualities  of  the  same  body  will  be  changed". 

So  much  for  history.  An  explanation  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body  could  consist  in  nothing  but 
describing  the  glorified  body  ;  and  that  could  only  be  described 
in  negative  terms,  by  removing  all  the  imperfections  of  our 
natural  body.  "  Resurgent,"  says  Augustin 8,  *'  corpora  sine 
ullo  vitio,  sine  ulla,  deformitate,  sicut  sine  ulla  corruptione, 
onere,  aut  difficultate."  And  even  this  removal  of  imperfections 
may  be  called  imaginary*.  It  admits  therefore  of  various 
degrees ;  and  hence  all  the  disputes  which  have  arisen  on  this 
head.  Imagine  the  spiritual  body  very  refined,  and  the  plainer 
orthodox  are  alarmed  for  its  identity ;  they  fear  it  should  not 
be  left  corporeal,  or  carnal.  Speak  of  the  spiritual  body  in 
terms  usually  denoting  solid  matter,  talk  of  flesh  and  bones, 
420  and  the  more  philosophical  orthodox  are  alarmed  for  its  spi 
rituality  ;  they  say,  you  want  to  have  our  future  bodies  too 
gross — "  flesh  and  blood  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  The  rational  man  leaves  the  whole  matter  to  the 
disposal  of  God. 

The  doctrine  before  us  can  only  have  a  proof  from  Scrip 
ture,  though  Bishop  Sherlock  has  given  good  illustrations  and 
confirmations  of  it,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing ;  as  indeed  did 
the  39th  Article  of  1552,  in  very  few  words,  "  that  the  whole 
man?  &c.  Dr.  Rutherforth10  has  confined  himself  to  scriptural 
proof.  Supposing  the  resurrection  of  Christ  sufficiently  proved, 
the  passages  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  this  Appendix11  would 
be  a  sufficient  proof  of  ours.  To  which  we  may  add  1  John 
iii.  2,  "  we  shall  be  like  him."  Matt,  xxvii.  52,  53,  may  shew 
a  case  not  exactly  similar  to  that  resurrection,  which  brings 


See  Lord  King  on  the  Creed,  pp.  404, 


405,  from  Augustin. 


8  Enchir.  c.  xix.  cited  by  Lord  King, 
p.  406. 

9  Epiphanius  (Haer.  64.  sect.  63)  makes 
animal  and  spiritual  bodies  to  consist  in 
this,  that  animal  bodies  have  propensities 
and  appetites,  which  may  carry  men  to 
evil  ;  spiritual  bodies  have  none.    And  it 
may  be  true,  that,   where  men   neither 


marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  their 
propensities  may  be  suited  to  their  con 
dition  ;  but  even  this  must  imply  some 
change  or  refinement  in  the  body  itself. 

10  Charge  4th. 

11  Acts  xvii.  31, 32,  is  to  this  purpose  : 
ver.  31  is  about  raising  Christ  as  a  proof; 
in  ver.  32,  it  is  "the  resurrection  of  the 
dead." 


630  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  1. 

men  into  a  state  of  immortality  ;  yet  it  seems  improbable  that  II. 
the  bodies  of  saints,  or  Christians,  would  have  been  raised,  if 
there  was  afterwards  to  be  no  resurrection  of  the  body.  Indeed, 
it  may  not  be  certain  what  kind  of  bodies  these  persons  had  : 
they  "  appeared  unto  many  :"" — how  different  they  were  from 
Christ  in  the  nature  of  their  bodies  cannot,  probably,  be  deter 
mined.  John  v.  28,  seems  a  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  ;  the  grave  (/ur^peloi',  not  $§ift)  is  not  the  receptacle  of 
the  soul.  Rom.  viii.  19 — 23,  is  not  a  perspicuous  passage  ; 
therefore  it  is  rather  to  be  recommended  for  study,  than  to  be 
quoted.  Those  who  read  it  attentively  should  compare  with 
it  2  Cor.  v.  1 — 4.  1  Cor.  vi.  13,  14,  is  sufficiently  plain  ;  but 

1  Cor.  xv.  35 — 49,  is  a  capital  passage  to  our  purpose.     And,  as  421 
the  difficulty  arising  from  the  gross  nature  of  our  body  is  pro 
perly  the  only  one  incident  to  our  present   subject,  it  will  be 
proper  to  go  on,  and  read  ver.  50,  as  expressing  that  difficulty; 
and  ver.  58,  with  Phil.  iii.  20,  21,  as  giving  a  solution  of  it. 

2  Pet.  i.  14,  probably  means  the  same  thing;  but  might  want 
explaining  and  defending,  if  any  one  should    be  contentious 
about  it. 

Though  I  have  said  that  the  grossness  of  our  present  bodies 
is  the  only  difficulty,  which  has  occasioned  divisions  amongst 
Christians,  yet  that  of  Voltaire  *  (and  of  others),  mentioned  in 
the  17th  section,  might  be  mentioned  here.  It  appears  to  our 
judgments  more  easy  to  collect  particles  sufficient  to  constitute 
identity,  than  to  create  out  of  nothing.  And  identity,  as  before, 
is  consistent  with  many  and  considerable  changes.  God  only 
knows  what  changes  of  material  particles  are  consistent  with 
that  sameness  which  is  requisite  for  the  purposes  of  a  just  re 
tribution. 


ARTICLE    V.  422 

OF     THE    HOLY    GHOST. 

THE  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
is  of  one  substance,  majesty,  and  glory,  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  very  and  eternal  God. 


1.   In  treating  this  Article,  we  will  follow  our  usual  method, 
and  therefore  begin  with  history. 

1   Voltaire,  vol.  xxvj.  quarto,  p.  111. 


IV.  V.  1.]  THE    HOLY     GHOST.  631 

II.  The  expressions  of  Scripture  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost 
being  of  various  kinds,  and  varying,  like  those  concerning  the 
Son  of  God  (Art.  ii.  sect.  31,  32),  almost  imperceptibly,  with 
the  circumstances  in  which  they  are  used,  nothing  better  could 
be  done  at  first  than  to  use  them  in  the  same  manner.  This 
would  be  done  of  course,  through  the  mere  help  of  feeling  or 
sense,  so  long  as  the  circumstances  implied  were  plainly  per 
ceived  ;  but,  when  circumstances  began  to  be  seen  more  faintly, 
or  to  be  forgotten,  then  a  greater  degree  of  attention  would  be 
required.  And  therefore  the  inattentive  would  come  to  use  ex 
pressions  of  Scripture  perversely,  perhaps  too  literally^  as  that 
arises  from  neglecting  circumstances — so  as  to  require  correc 
tion  ;  which  would  give  occasion  to  controversy,  and  that  to 
precise  and  systematical  use  of  terms,  though  in  different  or 
opposite  senses.  One  of  the  most  obvious  faults,  in  such  a 
423  case,  would  be  using  indefinite,  popular,  passionate  expressions, 
as  if  they  had  been  used  originally  in  a  literal,  philosophical, 
scientifical  sense 2. 

From  such  wrong  interpretation  of  expressions  must  arise 
wrong  notions  and  doctrines.  What  those  were,  which  were 
professed  in  very  early  times  of  Christianity,  it  may  sometimes 
be  difficult  to  ascertain.  In  order  to  approach  as  near  as  pos 
sible,  let  us  first  consider  the  sources  of  information,  and  next 
the  particular  information  which  they  yield,  in  the  matter  be 
fore  us.  Orthodox  writings  expressed  the  same  notions  which 
we  now  maintain  :  writings  deemed  heretical  used  to  be  de 
stroyed. 

We  have  already3  mentioned  Doxologies,  and  the  conclusions 
to  be  drawn  from  them.  We  will  now  shew  how  something 
may  be  learned  from  acts  of  ancient  Councils.  An  error  would 
not  have  been  condemned  if  it  had  not  actually  existed — not 
merely  because  it  might  exist:  this  we  may  at  all  times  take  for 
granted.  But  a  difficulty  sometimes  arises  from  errors  being 
condemned  without  any  mention  of  the  names  of  those  by  whom 
they  were  held  :  however,  circumstances  will  sometimes  solve 
this  difficulty.  One  kind  of  order  of  Councils  should  be  here 
mentioned  particularly;  that  is,  the  order  for  re-baptizing  here 
tics.  When  any  persons  had  been  baptized  in  a  sect,  which 
was  thought  to  have  something  radically  and  essentially  wrong 
in  the  form  of  its  baptism,  if  such  persons  wished  to  quit  that 
sect,  and  come  to  the  main  body  of  Christians,  or  the  Catholic 

1  Of  this  before,  Art.  i.  sect.  4;  and  Art.  ii.  sect.  4ft.  3  Art.  i.  sect.  4. 


632  ARTICLES    OK    RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  2. 

Church,  it  was  decreed  that  they  should  be  baptized  afresh.  II. 
Now,  as  regular  baptism  was  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  re-baptizing  must  be  owing  to  an  omission  of 
something  in  this  form  ;   which  would  be  caused  by  some  hete-  424 
rodox  opinion ;  probably  either  concerning  the  Son,  or  Holy 
Ghost ;  but  errors  were  more  frequent  and  more  likely  to  hap 
pen  concerning  the  latter   than    the  former.      The   scriptural 
ground  of  re-baptizing  was  what  is  recorded  Acts  xix.  5,  of 
baptizing,  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  those  who  had  before  only  re 
ceived  <c  John's  baptism  V 

It  may  also  be  mentioned  here,  that  several  persons,  in  dif 
ferent  ages  of  the  Church,  seem  to  have  run  into  an  analogy 
between  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  respect  to 
the  union  of  two  natures  in  one  Person.  So  that,  as  the  Word 
was  made  fash  and  was  sent*,  the  Holy  Ghost  became  an  hu 
man  Comforter  or  Paraclete.  Some  seem  to  have  said,  that, 
as  Christ  acted  with  men  as  a  Man,  so  the  Comforter,  sent  by 
Christ,  may  be,  and  probably  is  to  be,  a  Man.  The  famous 
Peter  Lombard  might  have  an  idea  of  this  sort,  when  he  made 
"  a  double  proceeding  of  the  Holy  Ghost — one  temporal,  the 
other 3  eternal.  Here  is  fine  scope  for  enthusiasm  !  a  man  of 
an  heated  imagination,  who  was  settled  in  this  notion,  that  there 
must  be  an  human  Comforter,  or  Holy  Ghost,  might  find  no 
great  difficulty  in  persuading  himself  that  he  was  this  human 
Comforter :  and  this  several  fanatics  seem  to  have  done.  But 
when  it  is  said  that  they  pretended  to  be  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
account  seems  to  me  rather  inaccurate;  they  probably  pretended 
to  be  nothing  more  than  men,  though  each  fancied  himself  the 
Comforter,  or  Paraclete. 

Those  who  have  been  less  used  to  read  the  Scriptures  in 
the  original  than  in  our  translation,  may  not  have  observed 
that  the  word  7rapaK\rjTos,  when  applied  to  the  Son  of  God,  is  425 
rendered  Advocate,  and  when  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  Comforter. 
Yet,  though  these  words  are  different,  the  fundamental  ideas 
are  much  the  same.  The  Paraclete  who  is  above  pleads  with 
the  Father,  the  Paraclete  who  is  below  pleads  with  men ; 
though  the  happiness  of  mankind  is  the  object  of  both. 

2.      These  things  premised  in  general,  we  might  divide  our 

historical  observations  into  three  parts :  the  first  taking  in  the 

. first  four  centuries,  or  perhaps  part  of  the  fifth;  the  next  relat- 

1  Mentioned    in    Lord    King  on   the          3  L.  Senten.  1.  14,  quoted  by  Rogers 
Creed,  p.  318.        -  John  ix.  7,  ct  passim.        on  this  Article,  p.  25. 


IV.  V.  2.]  THE     HOLY     GHOST.  ()«33 

II.  ing  to  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries;  the  last  regarding  the 
age  of  the  Reformation. 

We  must  not  speak  of  very  early  times  of  Christianity  with 
out  diffidence;  but  still  it  seems  as  if  it  might  be  useful  to 
mention,  in  a  cursory  way,  that  Simon  Magus  has  been  charged 
with  making  the  pretensions  now  described  4.  Menander,  his 
follower,  was  thought  worthy  of  notice5  on  account  of  his  errors; 
and  particularly  on  account  of  his  saying,  that  baptism  was 
valid  if  administered  in  the  name  of  Menander.  Mont  anus  is 
said  by  Augustin  6  to  have  called  himself  Paraclete,  and  to  have 
affirmed  that  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  fulfilled  in 
him — as  Comforter,  I  suppose.  He  is  also  said  to  have  bap 
tized  his  followers  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Monta- 
nus:  which  receives  some  confirmation  from  his  'followers  being 
426"  ordered,  by  two  Councils7,  to  be  re-baptized.  Sometimes  he 
used  to  put  the  name  of  one  of  his  prophetesses  (Priscilla  and 
Maximilla)  instead  of  his  own  ;  (could  this  be  in  baptizing  fe 
males  ?)  Mani  has  been  charged  with  making  the  pretensions 
here  spoken  of  (to  be  Paraclete) ;  but  Lardner  defends  him, 
and  says,  that  he  pretended  to  nothing  more  than  communica 
tion  with  the  Deity.  We  have  had  his  Trinity*  before:  he 
supposed  the  residence  of  the  third  Person  to  be  in  the  air — a 
thing  not  unlikely  to  occur.  His  oriental  philosophy  did  not 
immediately  suggest  this.  In  that,  the  Spirits  are  said  to  be 
called  <pwTa'Jy  or  lights;  to  which  St.  John's  10  use  of  the  word 
Light  may  refer. 

Christians  have  been  said  to  judaixe,  when  they  have  used 
the  word  Spiritus  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Jews  used  mi,  for 
an  energy  of  God,  particularly  that  by  which  the  prophets 
prophesied.  Its  sense  in  Acts11  sometimes  seems  to  approach 
to  this. 

The  connection  between  Paul  of  Samosata,  Marcellus,  and 
Photinus,  has  been  shewn 12  under  the  second  Article.  Their 

4  Aug.     Haer.     1.      Simon     affirmed  I   them  the  same;  the  latter  name  from  a 
"postea"  (after  he  had  given  the  Law  village  in  Phrygia,  which  the  Montanists 
as    Moses,    and   appeared  on   earth    as  I   held  sacred — a  sort  of  Jerusalem.     Aug. 
Christ)   ktse  in  linguis  igneis  spiritum  '   indeed     mentions     that     some     persons 
sanctum  super  Apostolos  venisse."  thought  them  the  same.           6  H«rr.  2fi. 

5  What   Bingham  says,    11.  3.  5,    I  7  That  of  Laodicea,   and  the  first  of 
have  found  confirmed  by  writers  on  here-  ;    Constantinople. 

sies,  Aug.  Theod.  Philaster,  &c.    Aug.          8  Sect.  3  of  Appendix  to  Book  I. 
calls  Montanus's  sect  Cataphryges,  No.  9  Michaelis,  sect.  100,  p.  2-lf»,  quarto. 

26.     Aug.  makes  Cataphryges  different  ;      ln  John  i.  4,  9.  n  Acts.  xix.  6. 

from    Peptiziani ;    but   Lardner  makes  !      '-  Art.  ii.  sect.  7- 


634  AllTICLES   OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  2. 

works  not  being  extant,  we  may  aim  at  a  general  idea  of  them  II. 
all  taken  together.  They  seem  to  have  held,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  Scripture  does  not  mean  a  Person,  but  some  efficacy 
of  God — some  effect  of  his  goodness,  some  specimen  of  his  di 
vine  power — which  probably  it  sometimes  does.  Augustin  says1, 
that  the  Pauliani  were  ordered  by  the  Council  of  Nice  to  be 
re-baptized:  but  the  acts  of  that  Council  are  not  all  extant2; 
nor  does  it,  I  think,  appear  what  it  was  which  vitiated  the  Pau- 
lian  baptism. 

Origeri's  works  have  been  so  mangled  and  interpolated,  that  427 
I  will  only  recommend  it  to  the  student  not  to  depend  absolutely 
on  any  single  passage  of  his  works,  in  points  which  have  been 
much  disputed  ;   except  he  should  wish  to  enter  fully  into  the 
subject,  and  ttfen  I  would  refer  him  to  Huefs  Origeniana. 

The  SabellianS)  of  whom  we  have  spoken  3  before,  were  to 
be  re-baptized*;  but  their  particular  form  of  baptism  is  not 
extant :  and  the  Priscillianists  have  been  reckoned  a  species  of 
Sabellians 5. 

Lactantius  has  been  mentioned  6  before. 

The  Arians  were  so  much  engaged  in  controversy  about 
the  Son  of  God,  that  they  attended  less  to  fixing  a  doctrine 
concerning  the  Holy  Ghost:  yet  Augustin  says7  of  them,  that 
they  called  him  "  creaturam  creatures ;"  which,  by  the  way, 
allows  to  the  Son  a  creative  power.  This  agrees  too  with  Epi- 
phanius8,  and  might  be  taken  from  him.  However,  only  the 
Eunomians  of  the  Arian  sects,  seem  to  have  been  re-baptized 
by  the  Catholics.  They  baptized  into  the  death 9  of  Christ 
only;  though  the  following  was  a  form  ascribed  to  some  of 
them  :  In  the  name  of  the  uncreated  God,  the  created  God, 
and  the  sanctifying  Spirit,  created  by  the  created  Son. 

But  the  Christians  most  distinguished  for  their  opposition 
to  the  Holy  Spirit  were  the  followers  of  Macedonius,  called,  on 
that  account,  Trveufiaro^a'^oi.  Macedonius  was  a  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  and  deposed  by  a  council  there  in  the  year  360. 
His  followers  were  the  more  noticed  for  their  heterodoxy  in  428 
regard  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  they  were  orthodox  with 
regard  to  the  Son ;  and  could  urge,  in  their  own  defence,  that 


1  User.  44. 

2  The  Creed,  Synodical  Epistle,  and 
20   Canons,  remain.     Lard.  vol.  iv.  p. 
191.  3  Art.  i.  sect.  4. 

4  Seventh   canon  of  first   Council   of 
Constantinople.  1       9  See  B  high  am,  11.  3.  10.    Rom.  vi.  3. 


5  Aug.  Hsr.  JO,  end.    Also  Art.  i. 
sect.  4. 

6  Art.  i.  sect.  4. 

7  Haer.  49. 

8  See  Lard.  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  113. 


IV.  v.  3.] 


THE    HOLY    GHOST. 


635 


IT.  they  received  the  whole  of  the  Nicene  Creed10.  What  the  pre 
cise  idea  of  the  Macedonians  was,  we  do  not  seem  to  know  cer 
tainly.  Augustin  reckons  them  only  Semi-arians;  and  Sozomen  M 
says,  that  they  looked  upon  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  kind  of  ser 
vant — $ICLK.OVOV  teal  vTrripeTrjv\  but  our  Reformatio  Legum  only 
says12,  ilium  pro  Deo  non  agnoscentes,  speaking  of  those  Chris 
tians  who  conspire  with  Macedonius  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  We  will  now  take  some  notice  of  the  disputes  of  the 
eighth  and  ninth  centuries.  Mosheim,  a  professed  historian, 
acknowledges  13  that  the  origin  of  them  "  is  covered  with  per 
plexity  and  doubt;""  and  the  occasion  and  rise  of  a  dispute  ge 
nerally  influences  the  whole  of  it:  so  that,  if  the  occasion  is 
doubtful,  there  will  be  doubts  and  different  opinions  concerning 
the  rest.  What  opinion  I  have  formed  of  this  part  of  history, 
from  the  materials  which  have  come  in  my  way,  I  will  give  you 
frankly.  In  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  centuries,  various  dis 
putes  took  place  with  the  followers  of  Macedonius,  with  respect 
to  the  nature  and  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  might  be 
particularly  mentioned,  with  a  view  to  what  followed,  that,  so 
soon  as  the  years  430  and  431,  in  the  Councils  of  Alexandria 
and  Ephesus,  it  was  declared  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded 
from  the  Son  as  well  as  from  the  Father.  In  order  to  termi 
nate  these  disputes,  the  Church  in  general  made  a  sort  of  settle 
ment  or  determination  what  should  be  accounted  the  Catholic 
429  doctrine;  and,  to  avoid  farther  adjustings  of  formularies,  agreed 
that  nothing  should  from  that  time  be  added  to  those  then  un 
der  consideration.  It  is  probable  that,  at  that  time,  the  ques 
tion,  whether  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be  spoken  of  as  proceeding 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son  (Filioque  is  the  famous  word), 
did  not  occur  to  men^s  minds.  Filioque  was  not  in  the  Creeds, 
though  it  was  not  new.  The  students  in  the  Western  Church 
seem  to  have  ere  long  contracted  an  opinion,  that  it  was  proper 
for  them  to  profess  in  a  Creed  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded 
from  the  Son  ;  they  therefore  inserted  (or  one  might  say,  re- 
stored  14)  Filioque;  meaning,  probably,  no  harm  :  and  then  the 
Eastern  Church  thought  as  little  of  complaining  as  the  Western 
of  offending.  Afterwards,  however,  contentions  for  worldly 
grandeur  produced  contentions  about  theological  truth.  Rome 
and  Constantinople  were  rivals  ;  not  only  for  imperial,  but  for 


10  See  Lord  King,  p.  319,  from  Epi- 
phanius. 

11  Lib.  24,  cap.  27. 


12  De  Haeresibus,  cap.  fi. 

13  Mosheira,  vol.  n.  8vo,  p.  268. 

14  Sec  Long's  Councils,  p.  104. 


636  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  4. 

spiritual  pre-eminence.  The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  styled  II. 
himself  Episcopus  JEcumenicus ;  Gregory  the  Great,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  was  more  lowly  in  the  title  he  assumed — he  was 
"  Servus  servorum1"  scilicet  Dei;  but,  in  his  pretensions  to 
authority,  he  was  equally  ambitious.  The  Patriarch  was  the 
head  of  the  Eastern  Church  ;  the  Pope  of  the  Western.  This 
rivalship  made  the  Churches  seek  occasions  of  blaming  each 
other;  and  thus  the  insertion  of  Filioque  came  to  be  complained 
of  as  a  breach  of  faith.  It  was  defended  by  the  Western 
Church,  because  the  word  contained  right  doctrine ;  this  was 
enough  to  make  the  Eastern  Church  dispute  the  doctrine ;  they 
did  so,  and  the  dispute  still  subsists,  and  still  causes  a  separation  430 
betwixt  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches.  One  Pope  (Leo 
III.)  did  once,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  order  Filioque  to  be  put 
out  of  the  Creed;  at  the  same  time  ratifying  the  doctrine  which 
it  comprehends :  but  he  could  only  prevail  in  those  churches 
which  were  under  his  most  immediate  inspection;  and  that  only 
for  a  time.  The  obstinate  resistance  of  the  Greek  or  Eastern 
Church,  to  the  insertion  of  Filioque,  is  the  more  likely  to  be 
owing  to  some  worldly  considerations ;  as  several  of  the  Greek 
fathers  have  the  doctrine  in  their  works,  clearly  expressed  2. 

4.  The  doctrine,  which  has  the  best  claim  to  be  called  Ca 
tholic,  is  that  which  our  Church  professes :  but,  in  the  age  of 
the  Reformation,  when  every  one  was  heated,  and  eager  to  dis 
tinguish  himself,  some  extravagances  broke  forth — some  of  the 
old  enthusiastic  pretensions  shewed  themselves  again.  Mosheim 
does  not  say  that  Servetus 3  pretended  to  be  the  Paraclete,  but 
I  think  others  do ;  and  he  says,  that  Servetus  pretended  to  a 
divine  commission  to  explain  genuine  Christianity,  which  had 
been  long  lost.  Gentilis^s  scheme  before 4  mentioned  makes  the 
Holy  Spirit  distinct  from  the  divine  essence :  he  has  also  been 
said  to  deny  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeded  from  the  Son  5. 

In  the  book  mentioned  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Articles6, 
called  a  Necessary  Doctrine,  &c.,  the  words  made  use  of  seem 
calculated  to  express  both  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  his  being7  an  energy.  He  is  holy  and  "  holinesse  itself e;™ 
"full  of  all  goodnesse  and  benignitie,  yea  goodnesse  itself e  f 


1  Bp.    Hallifax's    Sermons    on    Pro 
phecy,  Serm.  llth,  p.  341,  note;  where 
he  shews   that  "  Vicarius  Dei"  means 
the  same  with  "  Servus  servorum  Dei." 

2  See  Nicholls  on  this  Article. — Epi- 
phanius,  CyrU,  and  Basil. 


Index,  Servetus. 
Art.  ii.  sect.  14. 
Long's  Councils,  p.  104. 
Introd.  to  Book  IV.  sect.  4. 
See  on  the  Crede. 


IV.  V.  5.J  THE    HOLY    GHOST. 

II.  and  so,  "  charitie  itselfe."     In  the  Reformatio*  Legum,  those 

431  were  to  be  subject  to  all  the  pains  and  penalties  of  heresy  who 
denied  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Yet  our  present  Ar 
ticle  was  not  in  those  of  1552.   Perhaps  the  main  substance  of  it 
was  considered  as  already  in  the  first  Article  ;  but,  as  that  did 
not  then  prevent  the  second  from  being  made  separately,  so  nei 
ther  need  it  have  prevented  the  fifth :  though  there  is  certainly 
more  fresh  matter  in  the  second  than  in  the  fifth. 

The  Socinians,  though  they  changed  their  language  con 
cerning  the  Son  of  God,  seem  always  to  have  denied  the  Per 
sonality  of  the  Spirit.  Even  in  their  old  Catechism,  we  have 
4t  Spiritus  Sanctus  est  Virtus  Dei."  And  the  Racovian  cate 
chism  says  the  same9;  and  denies  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  "in 
Deitate  Personam" 

Lastly,  Mosheim10  mentions  Paul  Maty  as  having  published 
at  the  Hague,  in  1729,  an  hypothesis,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
two  natures,  as  before11  mentioned;  which  hypothesis  he  is  said 
to  have  adopted  from  Dr.  Thomas  Burnet. 

I  think  pretensions  to  being  the  Paraclete  were  not  uncom 
mon  amongst  the  enthusiastic  Anabaptists  in  the  age  of  the  Re 
formation  ;  but  I  have  no  instances  before  me  at  present. 

5.  Having  finished  our  history,  we  come  to  the  explana 
tion  :  which  will  be  confined  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  Holy 
Ghost,  or  Spirit  of  God.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  same  as  the 
Spirit  of  God.  "  The  Holy  One"1  was  one  of  the  names  of  God. 
Luke  i.  49,  we  have  "  Holy  is  his  Name.'"'1 

432  When  we  compare  this  Article  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost 
with  the  second  concerning  the  Son,  this  seems  the  more  difficult 
as  to  the  principal  term  made  use  of;   but   I   much  question 
whether  it  ought  to  seem  so.      Ghost  is  only  (as  appears  from 
Skinner's  Lexicon)    an  old  word  for  spirit;   and  of  spirit  we 
talk  continually ;   and,  though  there  may  be  something  in  it 
which  is  unintelligible,  yet  there  is  also  something  that  is  clear. 
Whenever  we  use  any  word  familiarly,  it  is  to  express  something 
which  very  frequently  comes  in  our  way  ;   and  so  long  as  we 
keep  to  that  which  occasioned  its  being  used,  it  is  intelligible ; 
though  there  is  nothing  so  plain  but  we  may  perplex  ourselves 
about  it,  if  we  endeavour  to  view  it  on  that  side  which  is  hid 
from  us  in  ordinary  life. 

8  De  Haeresibus,  cap.  6.  I    ther  Maclaine's,  but  from    a    work    of 

9  Cap.  6,  p.  167,  edit.  1651.  j    Moslieim's. 

10  Index,  Maty.    The  account  is  ra-    ;       1J  Sect,  first  of  this  Article. 


638  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  5. 

Now,  as  God  calls  the  second  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  II. 
his  Son,  in  order  to  give  us  some  faint  idea  of  his  nature,  by 
comparing  what  we  cannot  comprehend  with  what  is  familiar  to 
us — it  is  highly  probable,  that,  when  he  calls  the  third  Person 
his  Spirit,  he  means  to  answer  the  same  purpose — to  give  us 
some  obscure  conception  of  his  nature,  by  comparing  him  to 
something  of  which  we  speak  familiarly  every  day.  It  is  our 
business  then  to  take  both  the  words  Son  and  Spirit  in  that 
view  of  them  which  is  most  familiar  to  us ;  otherwise  we  per 
vert  their  meaning.  Son  and  Spirit  may  both  be  made  unintel 
ligible.  Though  we  can  talk  to  the  plainest  man  about  his  son, 
there  are  inexplicable  mysteries  in  generation.  In  like  manner, 
though  every  man  knows  that  he  has  life  to  be  preserved,  and 
a  soul  to  be  saved,  nothing  is  easier  than  to  lose  ourselves  in 
metaphysical  labyrinths  about  spirit.  The  popular  sense  and 
views  of  Son  and  Spirit  are  the  only  right  ones  in  reading  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

But  though  we  say,  that,  in  getting  an  idea  of  the  Spirit  of  4*33 
God,  we  ought  not  to  think  metaphysically,  but  think,  or  rather 
feel,  popularly — yet  we  do  not  say  that  the  word  Spirit  has 
only  one  single  sense,  either  in  ordinary  discourse,  or  in  Scrip 
ture.  The  most  familiar  terms  have  often  more  meanings  than 
one ;  especially  if  they  denote  things  which  are  not  the  objects 
of  our  senses.  The  way  to  investigate  those  different  meanings 
is,  with  common  men,  to  trust  to  common  sense  and  common 
feelings ;  but,  with  thinking  and  philosophical  men,  it  is  to 
trace  out  the  natural  progression  of  our  thoughts  and  feelings. 
If  we  could  find  out  that  progression,  different  meanings  would 
not  perplex  or  embarrass  the  mind.  One  proof,  that  affixing 
different  senses  to  one  word  is  owing  to  such  progression,  is 
this :  that,  in  different  languages,  the  same  train  of  ideas  is 
expressed  by  a  single  word  in  each:  r\V\  has  the  same  mean 
ings,  or  nearly  all,  with  Trvev/uLa,  and  with  spiritus ;  which 
could  not  be  except  the  mind  affixed  the  meanings  by  some 
acts  common  to  all  men.  If  a  new  idea  occurs,  which  is  inde 
pendent  of  other  ideas,  we  give  it  a  new  name ;  but  if  an  idea 
occurs  by  means  of  its  connection  with  another  idea,  we  more 
easily  make  some  use  of  a  known  word,  than  invent  one  quite 
new ;  except  indeed  our  two  ideas  are  to  be  contradistin 
guished  ;  in  that  case  we  are  sure  to  use  two  different  names, 
though  we  may  not  in  other  cases.  The  connection  of  ideas 
is  a  curious  thing.  It  is  only  by  experience  and  observation 


IV.  v.  6\] 


THE     HOLY    GHOST. 


639 


II.  that  we  can  judge  bow  one  idea  introduces  another.  Mr. 
Hume  seems  to  have  given  this  matter  due  attention :  he 
observes1,  that  one  idea  introduces  another  by  resemblance, 

434  contiguity,  and  causation.     Let   us   see  how  this  has  place  in 
the  different  significations  of  the  word  Spirit ;  remarking  first, 
that,  as  all  our  ideas  are  acquired  originally  by  sensation,  the 
primitive  signification  of  every  word  must  be  something  which 
is  the  object  of  our  senses. 

6.  1.  Then  it  seems  as  if  the  primitive  meaning  of  the 
word  Spiritus  were  a  current  of  air,  or  a  wind.  In  this  sense 
fTH,  Trvevna,  spiritus,  are  used  Job  i.  19.  John  iii.  8 

2.  It  may  be  owing  to  resemblance  that   spiritus   means 
breath — that  important  current  of  air  which  proceeds  from  the 
lungs.     Spiritus  and  spiro  are  related  in  Latin,  like  irvevna  and 
Trveu)  in  Greek.      If  any  one  chose  to  call  this  the  primitive2 
sense,  I  should  not  contend  with  him.     Both  this  and  the  last 
meaning  belong  to  the  senses;  and  the  mind  might  be  led  by 
resemblance  from  either  of  them  to  the  other ;  Tnrev/ma  signify 
ing  breath,  1  Kings  xvii.  17;  Job  xvii.  1,  &c. 

3.  When  words  come  to  express  things  not  objects  of  sense, 
they  do  it  by  some  kind  of  comparison ;  and  comparison  implies 
resemblance.     Here  we  should  observe,  that,  when  any  words 
arejirst  transferred  (/mera^e/coi/rat)  to  stand  for  new  ideas,  by 
comparison,  all  men,  that  write  or  speak  accurately,  keep  up  in 
their  minds  a   constant  reference  to  the  original  proper  idea. 
Such  an  one  would  not  say  a  man  had  sagacity  to  see  a  thing, 
but  that  he  had  sagacity  to  smell  it  out.  orjind  it  out.     Thus 
the  word  spirit  has  always,  at   least  after  its   first  translation 
(as   Cicero  would  call  it),  a  tacit   reference   to   moving  as  a 

435  current,  or  proceeding  forth  as  breath*.     In  this  way  proceed 
ing  may  have  come  to  be  used,  probably,  with  regard  to  the 
Holy  Spirit:  at  least,  how  far  proceeding  implies   this  idea, 
should  be  attentively  considered. 

4.  Breath  is  the  cause  of  life — the  causa  sine  qua  non. 
Hence  it  becomes  natural  to  use  breath  for  life,  and  losing 


1  Inquiry — Understanding,  sect.  3. 

2  Junius  calls  this  the  primitive  sense 
of  ghost.    And  breath  comes  before  uair, 
wind."    Ormerod,  p.  53,  on  Priestley. 

3  The  schoolmen  used  to  call  proceed 
ing,    spiration.    (Burnet.)     Acts  ii.   2, 
"a  rushing  mighty  wind"  accompanies 
it.     When  a  Being  has  been  called  the 


Son,  to  call  his  derivation  by  the  term 
Generation,  is  only  going  on  with  the 
same  idea;  it  cannot  be  called  any  thing 
ne iv :  so,  when  a  Being  has  been  called 
Spirit,  his  derivation  will,  of  course,  be 
called  something  different  from  genera 
tion,  more  nearly  belonging  to  a  current 
of  air. 


640  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  6. 

breath,  or  spirit,  for  losing  life  :   we  call  it  expiring.     And   in  II. 
Scripture  e^cirvevvev1 ,  and  atprjKe  ro2  Trvev/jia.,  are  used  in  the 
same  manner.     To  expire,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  give  up  the 
ghost,.     Breath  is   used   for  life,  in   many   passages   of  Scrip 
ture  3. 

5.  But  when  we  die  we  not  only  lose  life,   but   all  our 
incorporeal  faculties — understanding,    will,    affections;    these 
therefore,   taken    collectively,    are   sometimes    denoted    by   the 
same  name.      This  collection   of   the  incorporeal   qualities  of 
each  man  is  sometimes  called  his  soul,  as  making  a  part  of  the 
man  ;    and  so  spirit,  in  one  sense,  becomes  synonymous  with 
soul 4,  or  mind :  though  sometimes  there  may  be  occasion  to 
separate  soul  into  \|/f^»J  and  i>ov$,  animal  and  intelligent. 

6.  The  soul,  or  spirit,  being  supposed  to  have  quitted  the 
body,  is  conceived  as  having  a  separate  existence,  or  as  being  a 
distinct  person  or  agent  ;   though,  for  a  while,  it  is  conceived, 

as  well  as  the  body,  to  belong  to  the  man.  Thus  it  is  said,  his  436 
body  is  buried5  in  peace,  but  his  soul  liveth  for  evermore. 
Heb.  xii.  23,  we  read  of  "  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect;" 
but  Luke  xxiv.  37,  and  39,  spirit  is  spoken  of  as  more  inde 
pendent — "  a  spirit,"  that  is  a  mans  spirit,  "  hath  not  flesh 
and  bones."  And  in  this  sense  we  speak  of  the  habitations,  or 
receptacles,  of  our  souls  or  spirits. 

7.  From  calling  the  incorporeal  part  of  man  spirit,  we  are 
led,  by  resemblance,  to  give  the  name  to  any  incorporeal  agent 
whatsoever ;    to  make  a  genus  or  species  of  spirits.     And  thus 
we  say  "  God  is  a  spirit6,"  and,  "  he  maketh  his  angels  spirits7." 
Nor   is  it  necessary  that  incorporeal  beings  should   have  any 
particular  moral  character,  in  order  to  be  called  by  this  name : 
there  are  not  only  good  but  evil  spirits. 

8.  It  is  not  material,  but   we  may  as  well  add,  that  the 
spirit  is  sometimes  *  opposed  to  the  letter.      In  this  case,  the 
letter  is  compared  to  the  body,  and  the  meaning  to  the  animal 
soul,  or   \l/vx>i'       This  sense  may   be   conceived  therefore  to 
branch  off  from  the  fourth  sense  ;    and  indeed  it  is  only  men- 

1  Luke  xxiii.  46.  4  1  Cor.  ii.  11,  former  part  of  the  verse : 

2  Matt,  xxvii.  50.    See  also  Acts  vii.  j    Rom.  viii.  16.    Acts  vii.  59,  may  belong 
59,  and  James  ii.  26.  to  our  fifth  or  sixth  observation. 

3  The  end  of  the  Psalms  (iraffa  TTJ/O»/).  5  Imitated  from   Ecclesiasticus  xi.iv. 
Eccles.  iii.  19 — TTVCV/JLU  opposed  to  6dva-  14. 

TOS — £c.     1  Kings  xvii.  17,    might   be   j       G  John  iv.  24. 

here,  as  well  as  before,  under  the  second   j       ?  Ps.  civ.  4.    See  also  I  Pet.  iii.  19. 

sense    TrveDnu.  8  2  Cor.  iii.  6. 


IV.  V.  6\]  THE     HOLY    GHOST.  641 

II.  tioned  in  order  to  shew,  that,  from  any  of  our  senses,  others 
may  divaricate,  which  it  is  not  to  our  purpose  to  specify. 

And  now,  from  the  instances  given  by  the  way,  it  must 
appear,  that  the  language  of  the  Scripture  is  accommodated  to 
the  natural  feelings  and  operations  of  the  human  mind.  But 
this  will  appear  more  fully,  if  we  recollect  that  the  sacred 
writers  do  not  only  comply  with  our  imperfect  conceptions  in 
speaking  of  things  human,  but  in  their  descriptions  of  the 

437  actions  and  qualities  of  the  Supreme  Being: — 1.   The  invisible 
influence  exercised  by  God  on  the  heart  of  man  is  illustrated 
by  being  compared  to  the  wind,  as  in  John  iii.  8,  where  Trvev^a 
is  first   translated   "wind"  and   then  "spirit."     2.    (and  4.) 
Breath  is  not  only  very  frequently  put  for  life,  (which  is  some 
times  called  "  the  breath  of  life,")  but  God  himself  is  said,  in 
giving  life,  to  breathe  into9  man's  nostrils  the  breath  of  life. 
And  the  Son  of  God  performs  10  the  act  of  breathing,  emblema 
tically,  when  he  bids  his  disciples  to  receive  the  holy  7rvev/ma — • 
the  Christian  life.    3.  The  Spirit  is  said  to  proceed  u — in  what 
way,  remains  to  be  considered  12,     5.  The  "  mind 13  of  the  Lord" 
is  several  times  mentioned  in  Scripture  ;    the  original    being 
sometimes  Trvev^a,  and  sometimes  vow.      Let  any  one  compare 
Rom.  xi.  34,  with  the  2d  chap,  of  1  Cor.  from  the  10th  verse, 
and  he  will  acknowledge  the  propriety  of  our  present  method 
of  investigating  the  Divine  mind,  by  a  comparison  with  the 
human. 

6.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  a  distinct 
Person  ;  but  this,  having  been  questioned,  must  be  reserved  for 
the  proof:   though  we  may  mention  a  sense  in  which  Trvevima  is 
taken  by  a  great  number  of  Christians.     To  those  who  acknow 
ledge  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  may  say  here,  that, 
when  the  Spirit  of  God  is  spoken  of  as  a  distinct  Person,  it  is 
so  as  to  be  consistent  with  the  Unity  of  God;  in  like  manner 
as  we  speak  of  the  spirit  of  a  man,  so  as  to  be  consistent  with 
the  Unity  of  a  man. 

7.  God  is  a  Spirit14. 

438  It  may  be  a  separate  remark,  that  in  Scripture  the  word 
Spirit  often  stands  for  the  efficacy,  effects,  or,  as  it  is  usual  to 
speak,  the  gifts  of  the   Spirit.     This  may  easily  happen  by 
causation ;  but  whether  we  have  a  sense  of  spirit  in  common 


9  Gen.  ii.  7,  TTV<»\V  £wrjs. 
10  John  xx.  22.  »  John  xv.  26. 

18  See  p.  639,  note. 


13  Lev.  xxiv.  12  ;  Rom.  xi.  34 ;  1  Cor. 


ii.  16. 


14  John  iv.  24. 


VOL.  I.  41 


642  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  V    7,  8. 

life  answering  to  this,  will  perhaps  be  doubted.  In  other  II. 
things,  the  same  word  which  signifies  the  cause  is  put  also  to 
denote  the  effect.  c  This  is  your  kindness,"*  means  often  'this 
is  the  effect  of  your  kindness.'  The  Greek  word  which  signifies 
the  pangs  of  parturition,  is  used  also  for  the  young1  brought 
forth.  Whether  spirit,  in  the  sense  of  vivacity  or  animation, 
will  be  reckoned  to  come  under  this  remark,  I  do  not  determine. 
The  gifts  of  the  Spirit  mentioned  in  Scripture  are  either  mira 
culous  powers,  or  good  dispositions.  The  gift  of  tongues  seems 
sometimes  to  take  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  Ghost,  by 
way  of  eminence;  as  it  was  conferred  Jirst  in  a  most  striking 
manner,  and  served  afterwards  almost  to  distinguish  Christians 
from  heathens,  as  well  as  to  propagate  the  Christian  religion. 
In  this  sense  may  be  taken  the  expression,  "  whether  there  be 
any  Holy  Ghost."  Compare  Acts  xix.  2,  with  viii.  16. 

On  the  whole,  I  hope  it  appears  that  the  Author  of  the 
Christian  Revelation,  by  calling  the  third  Person  in  the  Holy 
Trinity  his  Spirit,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  did  not  intend  to  increase 
our  perplexity,  but  illustrate  to  us  what  we  cannot  directly 
comprehend,  by  a  comparison  with  that  which  we  constantly 
speak  of  as  familiar.  And  this  is  all  that  I  can  conceive  ne 
cessary  to  be  said  in  explanation  of  our  present  Article. 

7-      I  therefore  now  proceed  to  the  proof. 
All  the  propositions  of  this  Article  may  be  reduced  to  four.      439 

1.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  set  forth  to  us  in  Scripture  as  a 
Person,  or  Agent. 

2.  We  are  authorized  to  say  that  he  proceedeth  from  the 
Father. 

3.  Also,  that  he  proceedeth  from  the  Son. 

4.  It  is  the  meaning  of  Scripture  that  Christians  should 
treat  this  Person  as  Divine. 

8.  1.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  set  forth  to  us  in  Scripture  as 
a  Person.  It  must  be  owned  that  this  proposition  is  not  ex 
pressly  mentioned  in  our  present  Article  ;  but  yet  it  is  clearly 
implied  in  it,  and  expressed  in  the  first  Article. 

The  following  passages  represent  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a 
Person:  —  Matt.  xii.  32;  xxviii.  19.  John  xiv.  16,  26;  xvi. 
8,  13.  Rom.  viii.  26.  1  Cor.  xii.  11.  Eph.  iv.  30  2.  1  John 
v.  73.  Veneer  observes  (p.  113),  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  op 
posed  to  evil  spirits  ;  who  are  persons. 


Twos,  ogives  :  see  Parkhurst's   I       *  See  Dr.  Priestley's  Familiar  Illus- 
Lexicon  ban,  sense  ii.  ;  or  toiiv.  I   tration,  p.  36.         3  See  Art.  ii.  sect.  17. 


IV.  V.  9~  11.]  THE     HOLY    GHOST.  643 

II.  9.  2.  This  Person  is  rightly  said,  in  any  Christian  con 
fession  of  faith,  to  proceed  from  the  Father.  This  appears  by 
John  xiv.  26 ;  xv.  26 ;  and  1  Pet.  i.  12,  where  the  word 
"  Heaven"  is  equivalent  to  the  Lord  of  Heaven.  It  appears 
also  by  all  those  passages  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  called 
the  "  Spirit  of  God"  or  the  '«  Spirit  of  the  Lord" — as  Matt, 
iii.  16.  Acts  v.  9-  1  Cor.  ii.  10,  11,  14.  1  Cor.  iii.  16.  1  Cor. 
vi.  19 4.  For,  if  the  Spirit  of  God  did  manifest  his  influence 
on  earth,  he  must  have  proceeded  from  God.  If  you  say,  that 
is  not  from  the  Father,  I  answer,  if  it  was  from  God,  and  not 
from  the  Father,  it  must  be  "  from  the  Father  and  the  Son" 

440  as  the  Article  says.     The  Holy  Ghost,  however,  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  the  Father,  Matt.  x.  20.      And  the  same  in  effect, 
Rom.  viii.  11. 

10.  3.   The  Holy  Ghost  ought  to  be  confessed  by  Chris 
tians  to  have  proceeded  from  the  Son.     John  xv.  26,  is  of  itself 
a  sufficient  call  upon  Christians  to  acknowledge  this.      But  we 
may  add  the  authority  of  John  xvi.  7  ;  xx.  22 ;  and  Acts  ii.  33. 
As  also  of  those  passages  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,   as   Rom.    viii.   9;    Gal.  iv.  6;    Phil.  i.   19; 
1  Pet.  i.  11;  arguing  as  about  the  Spirit  of  the  Father.    These 
texts  seem  quite  sufficient  to  justify  the  Western  Church,  in 
point  of  doctrine,  for  inserting  Filioque  in  the  Creed ;  though, 
with  Bishop  Burnet,  we  would  judge  the  Eastern  Church  with 
candour.     Two  of  the  texts,  proving  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  from  the  Son,  prove  also  the  procession  from  the  Father  ; 
namely,  John  xv.  26,  and  Rom  viii.  9.      Does  not  this  look  as 
if  the  Holy  Spirit  might  be  said  to  proceed  from  either,  or  both, 
as  was  most  suitable  to  circumstances  ?  and  is  not  that  a  far 
ther  proof  of  the  propriety  of  our  speaking  as  we  do  of  the 
Holy  Trinity? 

11.  4.    It   is   the   meaning  of  Scripture   that    Christians 
should   consider  the   Holy   Ghost   and    treat  him   as   Divine. 
One  single  passage  of  St.  Paul  seems  sufficient  to  prove  this — 
namely,  1  Cor.  ii.  11;  since,  according  to  all  our  notions,  which 
he  well  knew  who  was  both  the  Author  of  our  nature  and  of 
Revelation,  as  the  soul  or  spirit  of  man  is  human,  the  Spirit  of 
God  must  be  divine.      But  we  might  use  the  plan  which  we 
used  in  the  second 5  Article ;  and  prove  the  Divinity  of  the 
third  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  as  we  proved  that  of  the 

441  second.      1.   The  Holy  Ghost  is  called  eternal,  Heb.  ix.  14. 

4  See  Parkhurst,  Tn/eu/ua.  5  Art.  ii.  sect.  16. 

41 2 


644  ARTICLES     OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  12,  13. 

2.  For  creative  power,  see  Gen.  i.  2.  3.  We  have  instances  of  II. 
his  power,  equivalent  to  a  power  of  preserving :  1  Pet.  iii.  18, 
he  is  said  to  have  raised  Christ  from  the  dead.  4.  His  omni 
presence  is  frequently  mentioned.  John  xvi.  13,  He  is  to 
guide  us  into  all  truth.  He  is  to  be  a  Comforter,  not  to  one 
Christian,  but  all.  5.  His  omniscience  sufficiently  appears 
from  his  omnipresence :  and  from  bis  being  Guide  and  Com 
forter  to  all  Christians,  which  may  be  to  all  men.  And  1  Cor. 
vi.  19,  we  are  told,  that  our  bodies  are  inhabited  by  him  as  a 
temple  by  its  Deity.  Besides,  He  who  is  called  the  Mind  or 
Spirit  of  God,  an  omniscient  Being,  must  be  omniscient:  1  Cor. 
ii.  11.  6.  Lastly,  He  is  a  proper  object  of  worship;  so  must 
every  one  be  who  has  properly  a  temple.  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
implies  this;  Rom.  ix.  1,  is  a  kind  of  oath  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  14,  a 
benediction. 

Besides  what  proof  arises  under  this  plan,  we  may  urge, 
that  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  implies  that  he  is  divine. 
Especially  as  it  is  an  unpardonable  sin,  either  absolutely,  or 
comparatively. 

In  Acts  v.  the  3rd  verse  compared  with  the  4th,  seems  a 
full  proof,  that  we  ought  to  consider  the  Holy  Ghost  as  God. 
As  also  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  "the  temple  of  God?  compared  with 
1  Cor.  vi.  19,  "  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost."* 

Supposing  it  made  out  in  general  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God,  there  needs  not  any  particular  proof  that  he  "  is  of  one 
substance,  majesty,  and  glory,  with  the  Father  and  the  Son." 
They  have  been  proved  divine,  and  the  Unity  of  God  is  con 
fessed.  What  was1  before  said  of  infinite  intimacy,  may  be 
applied  here,  with  great  propriety,  to  him  who  knows  the  mind 
of  God;  and  perhaps  received  with  the  less  difficulty,  on  account  442 
of  the  freedom  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  imperfections  of 
matter. 

12.  Here  then  I  close  the  direct  proof  of  the  truth  of  our 
Article.     We   must  next  proceed  to  the  indirect  proof,  or  to 
answering  objections:  not  that  we  need  examine  every  objection  ; 
we  may  content  ourselves,  as  under  the  second  Article,  with 
arming  ourselves  in  such  a  manner  that  we  may  be  able  to  resist 
any  particular  attack,  as  occasion  may  require. 

13.  1.  We  will  take  notice  of  what  our  adversaries  say, 
with  regard  to  rhetorical  personification,  or  Prosopopceia.     The 
Holy  Ghost,  say  they,  is  no  more  a  Person,  than  Charity,  or 

1  Art.  i.  sect.  17 ;  and  Art.  ii.  sect.  21. 


IV.  V.   13.]  THE    HOLY    C4HOST.  645 

II.  Sin,  or  than  the  Wind,  which  "  bloweth  where  it  listeth 2." 
"  Charity 3  sufFereth  long,  and  is  kind,"  &c. ;  that  is,  the  chari 
table  man :  his  actions  are,  by  prosopopaeia,  ascribed  to  the 
virtue.  Sin  deceived  St.  Paul  (or  some  one  in  whose  person 
he  speaks)  and  slew  4  him ;  that  is,  sinful  principles,  ascribed 
rhetorically  to  Sin  as  a  person.  In  like  manner,  they  urge, 
that  what  is  said  to  be  done  by  the  Spirit,  is  really  done  by  an 
inspired5  man;  or  else  by  God  himself6,  whose  energy  or  virtus, 
is  personified.  We  own  that  the  Spirit  does  not  always  mean 
a  Person,  in  speaking  of  Deity,  any  more  than  Trvev/jia,  in  what 
is  said  of  man.  We  might  own  farther,  that  those  who  profess 
the  personality  of  the  Spirit  may  sometimes  take  passages  as 
implying  that  personality,  which  really  do  not ;  but  that  which 
chiefly  keeps  us  to  our  old  opinion  still  remains :  it  is,  that 
there  are  some  passages  of  Scripture,  which,  supposing  them 
figurative,  would  neither  have  rhetorical  beauty,  nor,  in  truth,. 
443  common  sense.  In  Rom.  viii.  26,  27 7,  the  Father  must  make 
intercession  to  himself;  or  the  saints  for  themselves.  In  John 
xv.  26,  Christ  must  send  the  Father  from  the  Father;  and  ac 
cording  to  John  xvi.  13,  he  must  speak  not  of  himself,  but  only 
what  was  dictated  to  him.  Bishop  Pearson  dwells  on  John 
xvi.  14 :  "  He  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  shew  it  unto 
you.11  God,  in  the  Socinian  sense  of  the  word,  could  not  re 
ceive  of  Chrisfs;  nor  could  an  inspired  man  shew  it  unto 
himself. 

How  then,  you  will  say,  shall  we  know  when  a  real  person 
is  spoken  of,  and  when  one  merely  rhetorical  ?  from  particular 
circumstances ;  as  in  the  instances  now  produced.  We  could 
sometimes  judge  from  the  general  style  of  the  composition  or 
passage,  of  which  any  doubtful  expression  made  a  part ;  the 
whole  air  or  manner  of  an  eloquent  passage  is  very  different 
from  that  of  an  argumentative  or  historical  one.  But,  if  there 
were  no  criterion  which  would  take  away  all  doubt  in  all 
cases,  no  argument  would  arise  against  what  we  have  said.  We 
every  day  allow  that  some  things  are  beautiful  and  proper, 
other  things  deformed  and  improper  ;  yet  no  criterion  seems 
yet  discovered,  by  which,  in  all  cases,  we  can  distinguish 
beauty  or  propriety  beyond  a  doubt.  Nay,  all  men  are  not 


8  John  iii.  8. 

3  1  Cor.  xiii.  4. 

4  Rom.  vii.  11. 

5  Acts  x.  19 ;  xiii.  2. 


1  Pet.  iii.  18. 


7  There  is  something  about  this  pas 
sage  in  Short  Defence  of  the  Atonement, 
p.  85. 


646 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [1 V.  V.  14,  1 5. 


yet  come  into  one  criterion  of  virtue ;   may  we   not  venture  II. 
to  say.  nevertheless,  that  some  things  are  right,   and  others 
wrong  ? 

14.  2.  Again,  it  may  be  urged,  how  can  the  Holy  Spirit 
proceed  from  the  Son,  if  in  many  places  the  Spirit  is  described 
as  superior  to  the  Son  ?   Places  of  this ]  sort  are  Matt.  i.  20 ; 

iv.  1  ;  xii.  28.  32.  John  i.  33.  Acts  i.  2.  But,  in  such  an  444 
economy  as  that  described  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  it 
may  happen,  that  any  one  person,  who  has  an  office,  may  be 
spoken  of  sometimes  as  superior,  sometimes  as  inferior  to  an 
other.  In  general,  he  who  gives  a  commission  is  superior  to  him 
who  receives  it ;  and  therefore,  if  either  the  Son  or  the  Holy 
Ghost  take  upon  him  some  commission  from  the  Deity,  he,  in 
executing  that  commission,  may  be  considered  as  inferior  to  that 
Being  who  appoints  to  it ; — or,  a  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
in  office,  though  he  be  divine,  is,  as  in  that 2  office,  below  Divi 
nity.  I  would  not  fix  upon  this  solution  positively,  but  I 
think  I  dare  recommend  to  the  student  to  make  trial  of  it. 
And  I  should  hope  some  advantage,  as  to  the  clearing  up  of 
difficulties,  might  result  from  the  experiment. 

15.  With  regard  to  other  objections,  I  will  only  refer  to  the 
general  precautions  mentioned  under  the  second  3  Article.      I 
was  so  full  upon  them,  that  any  one  would  easily  apply  them 
to  the  present  subject ;  that  is,  transfer  them  from  the  second 
Person   of  the  Holy  Trinity  to  the  third.      A  few  hints  will 
now  be  sufficient.    1.  Fallacies  are  apt  to  arise  from  not  attend 
ing  to  the  state  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  supposed   to  be 
when  any  thing  is  said  of  him.     2.  Or,  particularly,  from  not 
observing  whether  he  is  spoken  of  in  his  divine  or  his  official 
capacity.     3.   If  in  the  latter,  it  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the 
Father  and  the  Son  may  then  be  said  to  constitute  the  Deity, 
while  that  case  continues  ;    and   therefore  that  it   may  be   a 
matter  of  indifference  whether  the  Holy  Ghost  be  said  to  pro 
ceed  from   the  Father,   or  the  Son,  or  both.      4.   Partial   or 
incomplete  quotations  may  mislead  on  any  subject  whatsoever. 

5.  As  the  word  Spirit  has  so  many  senses,  that  kind  of  fallacy  445 
which  arises  from  implying,  that,  because  such  a  word  has  such 
a  particular  sense  in  one  place,  it  cannot  have  a  different  sense 
in  another  place,  is  one  which  may  occur  still  more  frequently 


1  Nestorius  cited  some  of  these  pas 
sages  against  the  Ariuns;  also  1  Tim.  iii. 
16,  "justified  in  the  Spirit."  See  Cyril's 


4th    book    against    Nestorius,    vol.    vi 
p.  103.  2  See  Art  ii.  sect.  33. 

3  Art.  ii.  sect.  30. 


IV.  V.  16.]  THE    HOLY    GHOST.  647 

II.  under  this  Article  than  under  the  second.  6.  The  caution 
about  attending  to  the  views  of  those  who  are  cited  as  witnesses, 
or  authorities,  seems  just  of  the  same  force  here  as  before.  7- 
Substitution  of  the  interpretation,  for  the  words  interpreted, 
may  be  here  also  equally  useful.  Indeed,  one  substitution 
before4  mentioned,  did  extend  to  our  present  subject.  Any 
one  might  substitute,  either  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  or  1  John  v. 
7,  for  the  Holy  Ghost,  either  the  Virtus 5  Dei  of  the  Socinian 
catechisms,  or  emanation ,  or  activity,  or  any  other  word  which 
was  exclusive  of  personality. 

16.  The  proof,  direct  and  indirect,  being  now  concluded, 
we  come  to  the  application ;  consisting  of  the  same  parts  as 
before. 

First  then  we  ask,  in  what  sense  a  thinking  man  would  at 
this  time  assent  to  this  Article  ?  Conceive  such  an  one,  in  his 
retirement,  informed  as  we  now  are,  seriously  examining  whe 
ther  he  could  sincerely  subscribe  to  it  or  not.  '  Let  me  con- 
sider,'*  he  might  say,  '  to  what  I  am  about  to  give  a  solemn 
assent.  Of  the  Holy  Ghost  I  certainly  have  not  a  clear  and 
distinct  idea  :  but  is  it  possible  that  I  should  have  ?  No  ;  the 
nature  of  God  must  be  above  the  comprehension  of  man.  Yet, 
when  I  am  told  that  the  Being,  in  whom  I  am  to  believe,  is  to 
be  considered  by  me  as  the  Mind  or  Spirit  of  God,  I  under 
stand  this  as  an  illustration  of  something  in  the  Divine  Nature, 
by  a  comparison  with  something  human.  An  human  mind  I 

446  do  not  understand  perfectly,  nor  indeed  an  human  body,  nor 
any  thing  else  ;  but  practically,  I  can  speak  of  it  with  ease 
and  consistency.  The  notion  in  which  I  so  speak  of  it  is  the 
one  which  I  ought  to  have  in  view  when  I  compare  it  with  the 
divine  mind ;  else  it  is  I  who  make  my  own  difficulties :  not 
that  the  most  popular  and  practical  way  of  viewing  my  own 
mind,  can  make  that,  which  is  illustrated,  even  so  clear  as  that 
by  which  the  illustration  is  made. 

*  When  I  speak  of  Spirit  with  regard  to  things  human,  the 
word  has  various  senses.  So  may  it  when  applied  to  things 
divine.  Sometimes  it  may  denote  things  which  are  effects  of 
the  divine  mind  :  be  it  so.  Yet,  when  I  consider  all  the  pas 
sages  of  Scripture  in  which  Spirit  occurs,  I  find  some  which 
seem  void  of  rational  meaning,  if  I  do  not  conceive  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  a  Person.  I  cannot,  without  the  greatest  violence 

*  That  in  the  form  of  Baptism,  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Art.  ii.  sect.  37. 
5  This  Article,  sect.  4. 


648  ARTICLES     OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  17. 

of  interpretation,  reject  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  II. 
therefore   I  do  acknowledge  it.      My  ideas  here  are  certainly 
inadequate ;  but  so  are  they  with  respect  to  the  Son  of  God ; 
especially   when  I  conceive  him  independently  of  his  human 
nature. 

'This  incorporeal  person  is  said  to  proceed  from  the  Deity; 
or  from  two  Persons,  which  (according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity)  may  be  conceived  to  constitute  the  Deity,  when  the 
third  Person  is  commissioned  to  execute  any  office-,  or  from 
either  of  them.  Here  again  my  ideas  are  inadequate;  but 
yet,  in  some  sense,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeded,  or  was 
sent,  or  commissioned,  is  declared ;  and,  if  it  had  not  been 
expressly  declared,  it  would  have  been  implied.  As  that  divine 
person,  who  was  called  the  Son  of  God,  must  of  course,  with 
out  any  new  idea,  be  said  to  be  generated;  so  He,  who  is 
called  the  Spirit,  must,  of  course,  be  said  to  have  some  other  44-7 
derivation  :  to  proceed,  is  as  well  as  any  thing  else.  How  then 
might  this  be  ?  I  know  not.  Might  it  be  as  breath  proceeds  ? 
or  "  like  a  rushing  mighty  wind  ?"  Might  it  be  as  an  ambas 
sador  is  commissioned  ?  I  know  not ;  and  it  probably  imports 
me  not  to  know. 

'Of  this  Person  things  are  affirmed  in  Scripture,  which  are 
peculiar  to  the  Divinity  himself.  Indeed,  the  mind  of  God 
must  be  divine.  I  therefore,  with  sacred  awe,  acknowledge  the 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  in  such  a  way  that  it  may  be 
consistent  with  the  Divinity  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and 
with  the  Unity  of  God.  Some  more  expressions,  I  see,  are 
contained  in  the  Article ;  but  I  see  not  that  they  increase  my 
difficulties.  I  have  no  idea  of  any  difference  of  "  substance," 
or  any  inequality  of  "  majesty  and  glory"  amongst  those  Per 
sons  whom  I  acknowledge  to  be  divine,  when  I  at  the  same 
time  profess  that  there  is  but  one  God.  I  mean  well,  and 
therefore,  if  I  err,  I  shall  hope  to  be  forgiven.' 

17.  (2d  and  3d  of  the  four  parts,  of  which  the  application 
consists.)  The  next  thing  to  be  considered  is  the  nature  of 
any  mutual  concessions,  which  might  be  adopted  in  order  to 
bring  about,  amongst  those  who  differ  in  private  opinion,  a 
sufficient  agreement  in  doctrine  'for  the  purpose  of  social 
worship.  But  I  have  enlarged  on  this  head  under  the  first 
and  second  Articles ;  and  there  is  such  an  affinity  between  the 
doctrines  of  those  Articles  and  the  present,  that  to  enlarge  again 
would  be  useless  repetition. 


IV.  V.  18—22.]  THE     HOLY     GHOST.  049 

II.  Our  doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  seems  rather  to 
afford  additional  motives  to  good  conduct,  than  motives  to 
action  which  are  opposed  to  any  practical  principles  of  our 
adversaries.  And  this  seems  to  afford  a  reason  why,  if  we 

448  were  mutually  candid  and  accommodating,  we  might  coincide 
in    worship  tolerably  well.      At   least,  additional  motives    to 
virtue  in  one  party,  cannot  hinder  a  coincidence  so  much,  as 
motives  or  rules  of  action  in  that  party,  which  were  contra 
dictory  to  some  held  sacred  by  the  opposite  party. 

18.  In  the  last  place,  we  come  to  the  subject  of  improve 
ments. 

19.  The  passages  of  Scripture,  from  which  the  doctrine 
concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  is  derived,  may  possibly  admit  of  a 
more  exact  and  minute  attention  than  has  hitherto  been  paid 
them,  with  regard  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they  occur. 
It  is  from  circumstances  that  a  judgment  must  be  formed  as  to 
personality,  and  as  to  any  difference  which  may  arise  from  his 
being  spoken  of  as  engaged  officially. 

20.  More  may  be  done  in  ascertaining  whether  expressions 
relating  to  the  Holy  Ghost  are  to  be  considered  as  indefinite, 
and  in  what  degree.     It  is  not  impossible  that  expressions  may 
be  (I  do  not  say  they  are)  more  definite  about  the  Holy  Ghost 
than  about  the  Son  ;   though  the  illustration  from  sonship  is 
more  definite  than  that  from  mind.      We  find  the  expression 
seven1  spirits  in  five  or  six  places  of  Scripture  :  if  that  expres 
sion  be  indefinite,  (as  forgiving  seven  times,  and  seventy  times 
seven,  seems  to  be),  it  may  be  admitted  into  expressions  about 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

21.  Perhaps   a  criterion   to  distinguish   rhetorical  from 
real  persons  might   be   found  out.      Or,   at  least,   we   might 
approach  towards  one,  so  as  to  be  nearer  to  one  than  we  are  at 
present. 

22.  It  would  be  an  improvement  if  forms  could  be  in 
vented  in    which    Socinians  could  join  :    in   which,   while  we 
addressed  ourselves  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  should  use  the 

449  same  words,  and  address  themselves  to  God 2,  independently  of 
the  Holy  Trinity.      While  we  took  some  expressions  as  plain, 
implying  a  real  person,  they  should  take  them  as  rhetorical,  or 
as  instances  of  the  prosopopaeia,  or  metonymy.    Under  the  first 
Article  I  gave  a  short  prayer 2  addressed  to  the  Son  in  scrip- 

1  See  Park.  Hebr.  Lexicon,  under  ma.  2  Art.  i.  sect.  14. 


650  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  V.  23,  24. 

tural  terms,  and  in  a  manner  promised1  a  similar  one  addressed  II. 
to  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  difficulty,  as  before  2  mentioned,  is, 
that  those  who  did  not  own  the  Holy  Ghost  for  a  Person  would 
think  they  had  no  object  to  address.  And  perhaps  there  may 
be  few,  if  any,  who  own  him  for  a  Person,  and  deny  his  being 
divine 3.  Nevertheless,  I  will  perform  my  promise,  and  exhibit 
a  short  specimen,  in  order  that  it  may  be  improved  upon :  it 
may  be  useful  as  briefly  expressing  the  attributes,  &c.  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

<O  thou  Spirit  of  God  !  foretold  by  the  prophet4;  thou,  by 
whom  our  blessed  Saviour  was  conceived,  thou,  who  presidedst 
at  his  Baptism  ;  by  whom  he  was  even  raised  from  the  dead5 ; 
by  whom  he  wrought  his  miracles 6 ;  in  whose  name  we  are 
admitted  into  the  community  of  Christians ; — do  thou  be  ever 
our  Comforter  and  guide! — do  thou,  who  art  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  guide  us  into  all  truth  :  teach  us  to  acknowledge  Jesus 
for  our  Lord  6  /  O  may  we  be  renewed  and  born  again  of  thee  ! 
mayest  thou  enable  us  to  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body !  of 
those  bodies  which  are  ennobled  by  being  thy  temples !  May  we 
be  so  led 8  by  thee,  that  we  may  be  truly  the  sons  of  God !— * 
then  shall  we  be  also  heirs ;  heirs  of  God  and  joint-heirs  450 
with  Christ!  and  we  shall  finally  receive  "an  inheritance9 
incorruptible  and  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved 
for  us  in  heaven." 

23.  As  our  affections  seem  to  depend  on  associations 10  and 
sympathies,    it    might    be    inquired,    whether    increasing    the 
number  of  our  relations  to  the  Deity  would  not  heighten  our 
devout  affections  ? 

24.  Lastly,  it  might  be  considered,  whether  our  difficulties 
respecting  the  Holy  Trinity,  in  all  its  parts,  do  not  depend 
greatly  on  our  not  confining  ourselves  to  those  views,  and  those 
modes  of  thinking,  which  are  most  properly  human  ? 


1  Art.  i.  sect.  15.       2  Art.  i.  sect.  14. 

3  The  Macedonians  did  this,  if  any. 
See  this  Art.  sect.  2.  end. 

4  Ezek.  xxxvi.  27.        5  1  Pet.  iii.  18. 


6  Matt.  xii.  28.  7  i  cor.  xii.  3. 

8  Rom.  viii.  14. 

9  1  Pet.  i.  4. 

10  Book  III.  chap.  iii.  sect.  10. 


IV.  vi.  Fref.]  THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  651 


II. 

451 


ARTICLE    VI. 

OF    THE    SUFFICIENCY    OF    THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES    FOR 
SALVATION. 

HOLY  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation: 
so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved 
thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be 
believed  as  an  Article  of  Faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  ne 
cessary  to  salvation.  In  the  name  of  the  Holy  Scripture  we  do 
understand  those  canonical  Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa 
ment,  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church. 

Of  the  Names  and  Number  of  the  Canonical  Books. 


Genesis, 

Exodus, 

Leviticus, 

Numeri, 

Deuteronomium, 

Joshua, 

Judges, 

Ruth, 

The  First  Book  of  Samuel, 

The  Second  Book  of  Samuel, 

The  First  Book  of  Kings, 

The  Second  Book  of  Kings, 


The  First  Book  of  Chronicles, 
The  Second  Book  of  Chronicles, 
The  First  Book  of  Esdras, 
The  Second  Book  of  Esdras, 
The  Book  of  Hester, 
The  Book  of  Job, 
The  Psalms, 
The  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  or  Preacher, 
Cantica,  or  Songs  of  Solomon, 
Four  Prophets  the  Greater, 
Twelve  Prophets  the  Less. 


And  the  other  Books  (as  Hierome  saith)  the  Church  doth 
read  for  example  of  life,  and  instruction  of  manners ;  but  yet 
doth  it  not  apply  them  to  establish  any  doctrine;  such  are  these 
following  : 


452         The  Third  Book  of  Esdras, 
The  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras, 
The  Book  of  Tobias, 
The  Book  of  Judith, 
The  rest  of  the  Book  of  Hester, 
The  Book  of  Wisdom, 
Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach, 


Baruch  the  Prophet, 

The  Song  of  the  Three  Children, 

The  Story  of  Susanna, 

Of  Bel  and  the  Dragon, 

The  Prayer  of  Manasses, 

The  First  Book  of  Maccabees, 

The  Second  Book  of  Maccabees. 


All  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  they  are  commonly 
received,  we  do  receive,  and  account  them  Canonical. 


Preface Our  Church,  having  laid  down  some  fundamen 
tal  doctrines,  comes  to  settle  the  principles  on  which  any  disputes 
are  to  be  carried  on.  This  might  have  been  done  first ;  but 
the  Articles  being  formed  with  a  view  to  a  separation  from  the 
Church  of  Rome,  it  might  seem  most  proper  to  lay  down,  in 


652  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  vi.  1,2. 

the  first  place,  such  things  concerning  the  nature  of  the  Deity  II. 
as  had  not  occasioned  any  controversy  with  the  Romish  Church. 
It  is  always  useful  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  those 
who  wrote  what  we  are  to  subscribe,  by  means  of  historical 
reflections ;  but  the  present  Article  differs  from  the  preceding 
in  respect  to  history.  Generally,  we  have  only  to  take  one 
station,  as  it  were,  and  look  back  into  past  times ;  but  here  we 
must  take  several  stations — a  circumstance  which  will  be  the 
occasion  of  our  using  a  different  method,  in  treating  of  the 
present  Article,  from  that  to  which  we  have  adhered  in  the  five 
preceding  Articles. 

1.  A  person  well  informed  in  History,  if  he  was  to  read  453 
our  Article,  would  first  cast  his  eyes  on  those  whom  the  reform 
ers  had  most  immediately  in  mew;  and  run  over  the  different 
notions  of  men   who  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation. 
Then,  when  he  saw  a  set  of  books  mentioned  as  sacred,  the 
last  of  which  had  been  published  above  2000  years,  he  would 
find  himself,  in  the  second  place,  carried  back  to  those  remote 
times;  nay,  to  all  the  ages  of  which  those  books  gave  an  account. 
When  he  perceived,  in  the  third  place,  a  question,  whether  a 
certain  number  of  books  should  be  ranked  in  this  old  class,  or 
not,  he  would  contemplate  those  events,  persons,  circumstances, 

by  which  such  question  should  be  decided.  And  lastly,  when 
he  read  of  another  set  of  books,  which  had  been  gradually  re 
ceived  as  of  Divine  authority  in  the  earlier  times  of  Christi 
anity,  he  would  examine  the  state  of  things  in  those  times  ;  as 
relating  to  Christians,  Jews,  and  Pagans. 

These  four  different  views,  or  stations,  will  divide  our  con 
siderations  on  the  present  Article  into  four  parts ;  in  each  of 
which  historical  reflections  will  naturally  occur  before  others. 

2.  1.   Let  us  first,  then,  consider  those  whom  the  authors  of 
our  Article  had  most  immediately  in  view.     And  here,  I  think, 
we  need  do  little  more  than  look  into  the  earlier  sessions  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  especially  the  fourth  *.      This  council  met 
Dec.  13,  1545,  for  the  purposes  of  reformation,  &c.  and  "ad 
extirpationem  hceresium,^  but  adjourned  till  after  the  holidays.   454 
At  their  second  session,  Jan.  75  1546  (N.  S.),  they  settled  the 
manner  of  conducting  the  Council ;   at  the  third,  Feb.  4,  they 
fixed  upon  a  Creed ;   and  at  the  fourth,  (April  8),  they  settled 
their  Canon  of  Scripture.      But,  besides  Scripture,  they  men- 

1  It  might  be  proper  to  oppose  to  the      De  summa  Trinitate,  and  De  Haresibus, 
Romish  Council  our  Reformatio  Legum.      cap.  3. 


IV.  vi.  2.] 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 


653 


II.  tion,  as  the  ground  of  their  faith,  Traditions ;  and  pronounce 
an  anathema  on  those  who  do  not  receive  both  their  Scriptures2, 
according  to  the  ancient  Latin  Vulgate,  and  their  Traditions. 
They  mention  also3  the  Fathers,  the  Councils,  and  the  Church. 
Sometimes  these  seem  to  be  separate  from  the  traditions,  and 
sometimes  they  look  as  if  the  traditions  were  made  up  of  them, 
or  things  contained  in  their  records.  Our  reformers  would 
have  all  these  in  view.  The  canon  of  Scripture  will  come  under 
our  second  part.  At  present  we  may  confine  ourselves  to  tra 
dition  ;  for  we  have  treated 4  of  the  Fathers  in  the  first  book ; 
and  the  subjects  of  the  Church  and  Councils  will  occur  in  the 
20th  and  21st  Articles. 

It  is  natural  to  ask,  whether  there  are  any  collections  of 
traditions,  as  there  are  with  us  of  maxims  of  unwritten  law  ? 
The  Council  of  Trent  mentions  none,  nor  Calmet,  under  Tra 
ditions.  Several  doctrines  founded  on  tradition  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Rhemish  Testament5;  and  Bishop  Burnet  speaks6  of  se 
veral  of  those  doctrines,  which  our  Articles  oppose  seemingly,  as 
having  this  origin.  Bishop  Porteus,  from  Achbishop  Seeker, 
455  mentions 7  u  the  Popish  creed"  as  composed  of  a  great  number 
of  doctrines  (amongst  others)  founded  on  tradition ;  but  I  sup 
pose  this  is  not  meant  of  any  written  creed,  properly  so  called8. 

Perhaps  traditions  are  only  proved  occasionally,  from 
Fathers,  &c. 

One  might  mention  here  the  Legends  of  the  Romish 
Church.  Legends  were  originally  only  things  legenda,  to  be 
read  at  religious  meetings ;  chiefly  narratives,  either  from  Scrip 
ture,  or  from  accounts  of  devout  men,  or  martyrs.  Ere  long 
the  histories  of  saints  seem  to  have  superseded  the  Scripture ; 
probably  by  being  made  more  striking  or  extravagant,  better 
suited  to  a  weak  judgment,  or  a  vitiated  taste.  What  is  called 
the  Golden  Legend  was  a  collection  of  these  histories  of  saints, 
made  by  an  Archbishop  of  Genoa,  near  the  end  of  the  13th 
century.  Some  legends  used  to  be  printed  in  the  Breviaries, 
or  abridgments  of  liturgies  :  but,  at  the  revival  of  learning, 


2  Our  Art.  of  1552  seems  to  take  for 
granted   that   the  Romish   Church  and 
ours  hold  the  same  Scriptures,  by  saying 
only  Scriptura  sacra,   and  not  giving  a 
list. 

3  See  fifth  session,  and  safe  conduct  in 
the  15th. 

*  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  11—16. 


5  The  Index  to  Fulke's  Rhem.  Test, 
shews  one  what  things  are  founded  on 
tradition. 

6  Burnet  on  Art.  vi.  p.  97, 8vo. 

7  Brief  Confutation.     Chap.  iv.  p.  7- 

8  In  books  of  travels  one  finds  many  tra 
ditions  mentioned.   See  also  Broughton'* 
Dictionary,  Legends. 


654  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  vi.  2. 

people  began  to  be  ashamed  of  them  ;  and  even  prelates  began  II. 
to  be  ambitious  of  shewing  themselves  enlightened  by  lopping 
off  a  legend. 

But,  when  the  Reformers  opposed  the  authority  of  tradi 
tions,  is  it  to  be  conceived  that  they  despised  all  traditional 
knowledge  ?  not  so ;  but  the  number  and  the  folly  of  things 
built  upon  tradition  had  got  to  be  so  great,  and  they  had  be 
come  of  such  high  authority,  that  it  was  necessary  to  rescue 
the  judgment  from  the  slavery,  under  which  it  laboured,  to 
papal  decrees,  canons  of  councils,  and  passages  of  fathers, 
genuine  and  spurious.  Otherwise,  while  every  thing  else 
became  improved  and  enlightened,  religion  would  have  con 
tinued  in  darkness.  However,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that 
those  who  did  thus  labour  to  free  the  judgment  from  the  deci-  456 
sions  of  barbarous  ages,  and  give  scriptural  authority  its  due 
pre-eminence,  were  not  of  the  common  people — they  were  no 
mob :  they  were  so  qualified  to  judge,  that  no  man  had  a  right 
to  impose  any  human  judgment  upon  them,  so  as  to  check  the 
course  of  their  own.  And,  though  decrees,  &c.  profess  to  be 
founded  on  Apostolical  authority,  yet  we  consider  them  as 
merely  human.  Bishop  Pearson  insists  on  the  perpetual  vir 
ginity  of  the  Mother  of  our  Lord,  as  proved  by  tradition ;  but 
then  this  is  not  made,  by  our  Church,  an  article  of  faith 
"  necessary  to  salvation.1' 

Such  was  the  situation  of  those  whom  the  authors  of  our 
Article  had  most  immediately  in  view.  As  to  explanation, 
this  part  does  not  seem  to  admit  of  any,  except  what  arises  from 
the  historical  account.  Under  the  34th  Article,  indeed,  we 
shall  see  a  different  kind  of  tradition  mentioned ;  such  as 
our  Church  approves,  in  its  way  ;  relating  to  customs  in 
matters  of  inferior  moment.  And  it  might  here  be  observed, 
with  regard  to  the  doctrinal  tradition  now  before  us,  what  is 
the  real  state  of  the  question  between  us  and  the  Romanists, 
We  are  not  contending  that  all  regard  to  councils,  fathers, 
ecclesiastical  decrees,  traditional  notions  (really  such)  should 
be  set  aside  :  in  our  Article  it  is  implied  that  both  sides  respect 
all  these  highly :  the  question  is  only,  whether  they  should  be 
obeyed  implicitly  as  divine^  or  only  reverenced  as  human — 
reverenced,  when  it  appears  to  our  reason  that  they  are  worthy 
to  be  reverenced.  If  the  Romanists  are  right,  these  things  are 
to  judge  us  ;  if  we  are  right,  we  are  to  judge  them 1. 

1  In    this   place,    we  might  refer  to      might  compare  the  Articles  of  1552  and 
Book  III.  chap.  ix.  sect  10;  and  we      of  1562. 


IV.  vi.  3. 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 


655 


II.         Some  Christians  have  undervalued  the  study  of  Scripture, 

457  who  have  been   no  particular   friends  to  tradition ;   these  are 
some  species  of  mystics  ;  but,  as   we  have  treated  largely  of 
mysticism  in  the  last  chapter  of  the  third  Book,  and  as  mystics 
will  be  mentioned  under  the  seventh  Article,  we  need  not  con 
sider  them  here :   we  may  however  refer  to  Reformatio  Legum, 
de  Haeresibus,  cap.  3. 

3.  We  might  now  proceed  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  first 
part  of  our  Article ;  but  as  the  proof  must  be  taken  from  what 
is  said  in  Scripture  with  regard  to  the  traditions  of  the  Jews, 
it  will  be  requisite  to  give  some  idea  of  them  ;  and,  when  we 
have  once  begun,  it  will  be  natural  to  go  on,  so  as  to  take  in 
the  Jewish  traditions  after  our  Saviour's  time,  as  well  as  before 
it ;  indeed  they  are,  in  themselves,  much  the  same. 

Long  before  our  Saviour's  time,  it  seems  probable  that  the 
Jews  had  some  sort  of  traditions ; — traditional  narratives, 
prophecies,  or  modes  of  interpreting  prophecies — modes  of 
arranging,  construing,  applying  the  Psalms,  and  other  parts 
of  Holy  Writ — methods  of  allegorizing,  All  these  our  Saviour 
and  his  Apostles  seem  to  have  so  far  adopted  as  to  make  use  of 
them  in  reasoning  with  the  Jews.  It  seems  generally  allowed, 
that  we  see,  in  the  New  Testament,  instances  of  referring  back, 
and  quoting,  which  imply  some  old  writing  allowed  as  authentic 
by  the  Jews,  when  we  do  not  find  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
passage  2  quoted  or  referred  to.  For  a  more  particular  account 
of  this,  I  refer  to  Anise's  Judgment  of  the  Jews,  chap.  ii.  iii.  iv; 
from  which  I  will  read  a  passage3  or  two  by  way  of  illustration. 

458  Besides  these  traditions,  the  Jews  seem  to  have  had  some  which 
they  made  a  bad  use  of,  and  which  seem  indeed  to  have  been, 
for  the  most  part,  faulty  in  themselves,  or  of  a  bad  tendency. 
Allix  reckons  Jive  sorts  of  traditional  subjects,  which  the  Jews 
profess  to  study  :    1.  Inferences  from  the  law  ;   though  of  these 
he  approves,  supposing  them  to  be  rightly  drawn.      2.   Cere 
monies    and    rites.      3.    Judicial    cases,    like    law    precedents. 

4.  Constitutions,  intended  as  a  fence  or  fortification  to  the  law. 

5.  Customs4.     All  these  might  contain   something  reasonable, 
supposing  no  want  of  reason  in  using  them  ;  but,  in  the  hands 
of  a  people  who  prided  themselves  on  productions  of  religious 


2  See  Book  I.  chap.  xvii.  sect.  19. 

3  These  passages  of  Allix,   chap,  ii, 
iii,  iv.  will  easily  appear  from  running 
over  the  heads,  or  paragraphs. 


4  Allix,  p.  12.  See  Wotton,  Misna, 
chap.  ii.  Wotton  h&sjive  orders,  as  well 
as  Allix,  and  there  is  a  considerable  like 
ness  between  them ;  but  some  difference. 


656 


ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION. 


[IV.  Vi.  3. 


fancy,  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  these  latter  sorts  of  traditions,  II. 
especially  the  two  last,  would  get  too  far  from  the  law  of  God, 
and  become  fanciful  and  trifling,  or  pernicious.  Nay,  probably 
they  would  many  of  them  be  mere  evasions1  of  the  law.  How 
ever,  as  what  is  most  outre  generally  strikes  and  takes  most, 
one  may  conceive  how  it  came  about  that  these  traditions  were 
even  preferred 2  to  the  law.  Though,  besides  evading  the  law, 
and  indulging  foolish  fancies,  there  was  the  spirit  of  contra 
diction  to  help  them  forwards — I  mean  in  the  controversy 
with  the  Caraites,  who  denied  the  authority  of  tradition  wholly. 
Here  we  see  what  it  principally  was  that  our  Saviour  so  much 
condemns.  Those  who  are  opposed  to  the  Caraites  are  called 
Rabbanists* ;  but  the  "Pharisaical  innovations"  were  rejected 
by  the  Shammeans4. 

Though  we  may  make  a  distinction  between  the  times  be-  459 
fore  and  after  the  time  of  Christ,  yet  the  same  traditions  seem 
to  have  been  continued;  except  that  they  multiplied,  and  at  last 
got  recorded.  About  the  middle  of  the  second5  century,  (or 
according  to  Lardner  in  the  year  180)  R.  Judah,  surnamed  the 
Holy,  gathered  the  Jewish  traditions  into  one  volume,  con 
sisting  of  six  books,  containing  63  treatises.  This  is  called  the 
Misna  6,  or  secondary  law.  As  soon  as  it  was  published  it  was 
studied  and  commented  upon  :  the  comment  is  called  Gemara, 
or  the  completing  of  the  Misna.  Indeed  the  Jews  of  Judea 
made  one  Gemara,  by  about  A.  D.  300,  called  the  Jerusalem  ; 
those  of  Babylonia,  another,  by  about  A.  D.  500,  called  the 
Babylonish.  The  word  Talmud  is  not  used  steadily  and  uni 
formly  :  it  sometimes  signifies  the  Misna,  or  text ;  sometimes 
the  Gemara,  or  completion,  or  comment  ;  and  sometimes  the 
whole,  consisting  of  Misna  and  Gemara.  However,  when  we 
read  of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  we  must  understand  only  the 
Gemara  made  by  the  Jews  of  Judea;  and  so  of  the  Babylonish 
Talmud.  The  former  is  in  one  volume  folio,  the  latter  in  twelve 
volumes  folio  :  the  Babylonish  is  the  most  fanciful  and  extra 
vagant,  and  the  most  followed.  I  will  now  only  add  how  this 
tradition  is  supposed  by  the  Rabbanists  to  have  been  carried 


1  Wotton,  pp.  68,  69. 

2  See  Wotton,  p.  69.    Collier's  Sacred 
Interpreter,  vol.  n.  p.  21. 

3  Wotton,  chap.  vi.  or  p.  72. 

4  Ibid.  Preface,  p.  XLVI.  note. 

5  Prideaux.      See     Lardner's     Test. 
Works,  vol.  vu.  p.  138. 


6  By  the  Jews  the  plural  word  Mis- 
naioth  is  more  commonly  used.  See 
Wotton,  note  to  the  beginning  of  2d 
chapter. — row  to  reiterate,  do  a  thing  a 
second  time.  -173:1  perfecit,  &c.  To1? 
didicit,  docuit. 


IV.   Vi.  4.]  THE     HOLY     SCRIPTURES.  657 

II.  on.  "  Many  things  were  delivered  orally  to  Moses  from  Mount 
Sinai,  which  were  not  written  in  the  law.  These  he  delivered 
to  Joshua,  and  he  to  the  Elders,  and  they  to  those  that  came 

460  after  them,  one  generation  after  another;   and  these  were  thus 
orally  delivered,  till  this  [oral]  law  was  [in  danger  of  being] 
forgotten  ;   and  then  the  men  of  the  age  thought  it  proper  to 
write  them  with  ink  in  a  book,  as  every  man  had  received  them 
from  those  that  were  ~  before  him.1" 

a  4.  We  may  now  proceed  to  the  proof  of  the  first  part  of 
our  Article  ;  namely,  of  this  proposition,  'no  doctrine  is  neces 
sary  which  is  not  supported  by  the  written  word  of  God.' 

1.  We  have  sufficient  reason  to  think,  that  whatever  was 
necessary  to  be  known  or  done  would  be  written  in  the  Chris 
tian  law,  from  what  was  done  with  regard  to  the  Jewish.  In 
the  earliest  times,  indeed,  the  will  of  God  must  (humanly 
speaking)  be  taught  without  writing;  and  simple  manners, 
with  great  length  of  life,  might,  for  a  while,  keep  such  teaching 
tolerably  incorrupt ;  but  it  seems  as  if  writing  had  been  used 
as  soon  as  possible.  What  could  be  more  likely  to  be  remem 
bered  than  the  Law  delivered  at  Mount  Sinai  ?  yet  it  was 
written,  or  engraved.  What  could  make  a  deeper  impression 
than  the  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage  ?  yet  it  was 
written,  even  though  ceremonies  were  appointed  to  renew 
annually  the  sense  of  it.  While  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
might  be  consulted,  why  write  so  much,  if  oral  law  could  be 
so  perfectly  preserved?  If  you  say,  the  danger  of  idolatry  made 
writing  the  more  needful,  you  only  give  another  general  reason 
against  trusting  to  tradition  ;  yet  nothing  could  make  writing 
so  necessary,  in  the  Jewish  religion,  as  it  is  in  the  Christian. 
The  Jews  were  a  small  body,  kept  united  by  a  number  of 
ceremonial  observances,  separated  more  from  other  nations  than 
any  other  people  ever  were.  Christianity  was  to  be  preached 

461  to  all  nations,  was  to  mix  with  all  kinds  of  customs  and  man 
ners,  with  all  sorts  of  philosophy,  all   sorts   of  business  and 
pleasure  :  it  was  to  be  supported  by  a  very  small  number  of 
external  duties — only  two  indeed  that  were  positively  enjoined. 
What  tradition  could  withstand  so  many  shocks  ? 

2.  We  may  collect,  that  oral  law  would  not  contain  any 
thing  necessary  to  salvation,  from  our  Saviours  practice  and 
discourses.  Though  he  does  sometimes,  seemingly,  adopt  some 

7  Wotton's  Misna,  p.  72.     See  Maimonides's  account,  p.  10,  which  is  longer  and 
more  Rabbinical. 

VOL.  I.  42 


658 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  Vi.  4. 


traditional  rules,  in  arguing  with  the  Jews,  it  does  not  appear  II. 
that  he  would  have  used  the  same  in  converting  the  Gentiles, 
though  he  would  have  mentioned  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament.  His  preaching  tended  much  more  to  invalidate 
tradition  than  to  confirm  it.  What  was  his  sermon  on  the 
Mount !,  or  the  chief  part  of  it,  but  rectifying  errors  of  tradi 
tion  ?  If  he  had  intended  that  his  religion  should  be  grounded 
on  tradition  in  any  considerable  degree,  would  he  have  spoken 
of  tradition  in  the  manner  he  has  2  spoken  ?  of  any  tradition 
whatsoever  ?  But,  say  the  Romanists,  the  tradition  spoken 
against  in  Matt.  xv.  is  either  "repugnant  to  God's3  Laws,"  or 
"  frivolous,  unprofitable,"  &c.,  not  like  theirs !  Then  we  are  to 
judge  of  the  rectitude  and  utility  of  tradition !  we  wish  nothing 
more.  May  we  not  judge  of  evidence  too  ?  A  real  tradition, 
that  is  virtuous4  and  useful,  no  reasonable  man  can  object  to  : 
but,  if  we  are  to  judge  tradition,  its  authority  is  gone;  that  is,  46'2 
if  we  are  only  to  adopt  it  when  we  think  it  useful. 

3.  The  Apostles  do  not  give  encouragement  to  tradition. 
They  taught,  indeed,  first  by  preaching ;  but  they  took  oppor 
tunities  of  writing  to  their  converts,  and  more  fully,  as  it  should 
seem,  than  they  would  have  done  if  they  had  meant  to  leave  an 
oral  law.  Four  disciples,  that  we  know  of,  undertook  to  write 
the  acts  and  discourses  of  their  Lord ;  and  one  of  them  records 
the  acts  of  the  Apostles  also:  might  not  many  things,  which 
are  written,  have  been  as  well  trusted  to  tradition  as  those 
things  which  have  been  said  to  be  trusted  to  it  P  Had  we 
sufficient  evidence  that  the  Apostles  really  did  preach  a  parti 
cular  doctrine,  we  should  accept  it  as  well  as  those  persons 
who  were  told  it  half  an  hour  after  it  was  preached  :  but  we 
hope  we  shall  not  be  blamed  for  searching  whether  things  re 
ported  are  really  true ;  we  hope  we  shall  be  reckoned,  like  the 
Bereans,  "  more  noble"  (euyevearepoi)  for  our  disposition  to 
examine.  The  Apostles,  like  their  Master,  seem  inclined  to 
reason  with  the  Jews  on  their  own  principles  and  received  his 
tories  ;  but  I  do  not  remember  their  saying,  or  implying,  that 
the  Jews  would  lose  the  favour  of  God,  or  be  accursed,  if  they 


1  Collier,  vol.  u.  p.  21. 
8  Matt.  xv.  1—9. 

3  Rhemish  Test,  on  Matt.  xv.  9. 

4  Our  Art.    of  1552  seems    to  allow 
something  to  tradition,   which  that    of 
1562  does  not.     Perhaps  the  order  and 


decorum  might  be  thought  to  belong 
more  properly  to  the  34th  Article  than 
to  this? — no;  rather  see  afterwards  Art. 
xx.  sect.  1,  where  this  being  left  out  is 
thought  one  possible  reason  why  the 
first  clause  in  the  20th  should  have  been 
inserted. 


IV.  vi.  5.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  659 

II.  neglected  some  particular  traditional  observance.  When  they 
seem  to  adopt  traditions  they  do  it  in  things  not 5  essential ; 
and  even  then  some  have  thought  they  referred  to  some  part  of 
the  Old  Testament r> ;  if  they  did  not,  they  might  only  argue 
with  the  Jew  from  what  he  would  allow.  Augustin  might 

463  often  admit  traditions,  though  he  did  not  think  himself  bound 
to  admit  them.      "  Quia  canonicum  non  est,  non  me  constrin- 

guv 

It  appears  to  me  that  some  passages  are  urged  on  the  side 
of  our  Church,  in  this  question,  which  have  not  much  weight. 
As  Deut.  iv.  2,  and  xii.  32 ;  which  seem  only  to  mean,  *  It  is 
God  who  gives  laws  to  the  Israelites ;  he  does  not  intrust  men 
as  legislators  ;  they  therefore  can  neither  make  new  laws,  nor 
repeal  old  ones.1  Yet  they  might  interpret,  and  even  make 
fo/e-laws,  so  long  as  they  grounded  them  on  the  old  ones,  or 
only  applied  the  old  ones  to  particular  cases,  and  settled  the 
means  of  executing  them :  such  sayings  might  be  added  to 
bodies  of  college  statutes,  &c.  Indeed,  when  the  Jews  came  to 
evade  their  written  law,  they  then  disobeyed  these  precepts  ; 
but  many  bye-laws  might  have  been  made,  without  doing  that. 
They  disobeyed  the  rest  of  the  law,  in  general,  when  they  dis 
obeyed  these  precepts.  St.  Paul  may  mean  no  more  by  Gal. 
i.  8,  9,  than  to  exclude  all  subsequent  gospels ;  nor,  by  2  Tim. 
iii.  14,  15,  &c.  than  to  desire  his  assistant  to  adhere  to  the  Old 
Testament,  rather  than  favour  any  of  the  notions  of  the  Gnos 
tics,  &c.  And,  by  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19,  nothing  more  may  be 
meant  than  that  the  Apocalypse  was  to  be  the  last  public  pro 
phecy8.  To  make  these  passages  exact  to  our  purpose,  the 
scriptural  authors  and  those  who  were  cautioned,  or  forbidden, 
to  add,  should  both  have  a  respect  and  reverence  for  tbat  which 
was  forbidden,  so  long  as  it  was  not  carried  too  far ;  whereas 

464  St.  Paul  had  no  respect  whatever  for  a  new  gospel:  and  so  of 
the  other  passages. 

5.  I  shall  add  nothing  to  what  I  have  now  said,  in  the 
way  of  direct  proof;  but  it  may  be  proper  to  mention  an  objec 
tion  or  two.  It  may  be  said,  that  St.  Paul  introduces  a  saying 


5  See  Hammond's  note  on  2  Tim.  iii. 
8.  Parenthesis  about  Jannes  and  Jam- 
bres. 


8  It  is  natural,  on  putting  the  finishing 
stroke  to  any  great  and  important  work, 
to  feel,  with  the  glow  of  self-applause, 


6  See  Lardner,  Suppl.  to  Cred.  Works,   j   some  fear  lest  the  busy  and  impertinent, 
vol.  vi.  pp.  618,  620.  j   by  their  forward  attempts  to  rectify  and 

7  Contra  Faustum,   1.  9,  in    Pearson,    j   amend,  should  destroy  the  effects  of  in- 
Oreed,  Art.  3,  p.  346,  1st  edit.  dustry  and  ingenuity. 

42 2 


660  ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  VI.  5. 

of  our  Lord,  "it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive1;1'  II. 
which  may  be   considered   as  traditional.      We  might  reply, 

1.  That  these  words,  of  themselves,  do  not  contain  "  an  article 
of  faith"  which  could  not  be  derived  from  Scripture.      But 

2.  They  are  a  part  of  Scripture.      St.  Luke  might  have  his 
choice  whether  he  would  put  them  into  the  mouth  of  Christ,  in 
his  Gospel,  or  into  the  mouth  of  St.  Paul,  in  his  history  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.     3.   Now  again  suppose  the  clause  a  mere 
tradition,  we  say,  give  us  as  good  evidence  of  a  saying  of  our 
Lord,  as  St.  Paul  had  of  this,  and  we  will  accept  it  joyfully  2. 

Again,  it  may  be  urged,  that,  even  in  Scripture,  traditions 
are  sometimes  commended.  First,  take  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  "  keep  the 
ordinances*,  as  I  have  delivered  them  to  you" — in  Greek 
TrapaSoa-eis,  and  indeed  in  our  margin  "  traditions,"  though 
the  Rhemish  Testament  blames  4  us  for  concealing  traditions. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  every  founder  of  a  church  must  make 
bye-laws  and  give  directions  not  worth  writing  down,  which  yet 
it  is  laudable  to  observe,  and  blameable  to  neglect.  That  ordi 
nances  here  relate  to  matters  of  inferior  consequence,  is  very 
probable  from  the  whole  passage,  consisting  of  sixteen  verses. 
But  this  objection  belongs  properly  to  the  34th  Article,  about 
customs.  "  We  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the  churches 5  465 
of  God." 

Another  instance  in  which  traditions  are  commended  is 
2  Thess.  ii.  15  :  "  Stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye 
have  been  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle."  Nothing 
is  more  clear  than  that  the  Thessalonians  must  have  had  verbal 
as  well  as  written  instruction  ;  but  the  difficulty  with  us  is,  to 
know  what  the  verbal  instruction  was :  this  to  them  was  no 
difficulty  at  all.  Let  us  know  any  thing  that  St.  Paul  said,  as 
well  as  they  knew  what  he  had  delivered  to  them  6iby  word," 
and  we  shall  raise  no  dispute  about  receiving  it.  St.  Paul  had 
been  represented  as  encouraging  a  notion  which  was  propagated 
in  the  church  of  Thessalonica ;  he  means  only  to  disclaim 
giving  such  encouragement,  and  to  exhort  his  converts  to  abide 
by  what  he  had  really  taught  them:  for  TrapaSoaeis  here  seems 
to  denote  whatever  had  been  delivered:  it  clearly  includes 
whatever  had  been  taught  by  writing. 


1  Acts  xx.  35. 

*  See  what  Menard  says,  Lard.  vol.  TI. 
p.  22,  on  a  saying  of  Barnabas,  which 
he  (Barnabas)  probably  heard  from  his 
Lord. 


1  Cor.  xi.  2. 


4  On  2  Thess.  ii.   15,  where,  in  our 
present  translation,  the  word  tradition  is 
used. 

5  I  Cor.  xi.  16. 


IV.  Vi.  5.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  661 

II.         Here  an  objection  occurs  of  a  very  different  nature  from 
the  preceding. 

It  is  the  nature  of  morality  to  keep  constantly  improving, 
if  men  make  a  right  use  of  their  experience.  Now,  suppose 
any  new  virtue  to  appear,  are  we  not  to  practise  and  enforce  it 
because  it  is  not  in  Scripture?  will  not  disobedience  to  it  be 
punished  ?  even  in  a  future  state  ?  or  will  it  be  said  that 
Scripture  now  contains  a  perfect  morality  ?  I  answer,  I  suppose 
that  scripture-morality  may,  in  some  sense,  be  considered  as 
imperfect.  It  is  not  systematical,  it  does  not  describe  limits, 
&c.  of  rights  and  obligations  ;  it  rather  enforces  what  it  takes 

466  for  granted6,  than  teaches  what  is  perfectly  new.      But  this  is 
not  any  reason  against  its  divine  original.      Why  should  moral 
philosophy  be  revealed  all  at  once,  rather  than  natural?   We 
improve  gradually  in  making  natural  bodies  promote  our  happi 
ness;  why  should  we  not  improve  gradually  in  making  our  own 
conduct  promote  happiness?  indeed,  improvement  in  morals  is 
sometimes  impossible  without    improvement  in  understanding 
the  powers  of  nature — as  in  the  case  of  temperance.      Shall 
virtue  be  so  revealed  that  man  shall  have  no  occasion  to  study 
it  ?   that  is  against  all  our  ideas  of  the  government  of  the  world. 
Besides,  all  the  dispensations  of  grace  are  progressive7;   why 
not   the  improvements  of  natural  virtue  ?    Indeed    the   lower 
degrees  of  virtue,  as  well  as  of  Revelation,  seem  necessary  in 
order  to  prepare  us  for  the  higher.     The  uncivilised  can  neither 
conceive  nor  feel  the  refinements  and  delicacies  of  the  improved 
heart  and  mind. 

Well,  but  now  give  us  an  instance  of  a  virtue  invented 
within  these  last  1800  years  (surely  a  sufficient  time),  and  not 
to  be  found  in  Scripture,  nor  "  proved  thereby."  Dares  any 
system  of  philosophy  make  pretension  to  such  a  virtue  ?  As  we 
are  at  liberty  to  prove  by  inference,  it  is  probable  that  we  shall 
find  your  virtue  in  Scripture :  for  Scripture  searches,  rectifies, 
and  warms  the  heart,  from  which  all  particular  modes  of  con 
ferring  happiness  flow.  There  it  fixes  principles  that  act  inces 
santly  ; — love  of  God — of  man  (and  love  worketh  no  ill  to  his 
neighbour);  forgiveness  of  injuries;  overcoming  evil  with  good; 
doing  to  others  as  you  would  they  should  do  to  you  :  being 
pitiful,  courteous;  pleasing  your  neighbour  to  edification;  sym 
pathizing  with  the  happy  and  the  miserable.  Give  us  your 

467  newly-invented  virtue ;   let  us  try  whether  an    heart  warmed 

"  Balguy,  pp.  87,  1H4,  1%.    Ephes.  vi.  1.  7  Law's  Theory  of  Religion 


C62 


ARTICLES    OK     RELIGION. 


[IV.  Vi.  5. 


with  these  sentiments,  and  impelled  by  these  motives  of  Scrip-  II. 
ture,  would  not  have  practised  it,  in  the  proper  circumstances. 

Suppose  we  fail,  yet  the  failure  could  not  affect  any  one 
who  was  only  inquiring  whether  he  could  assent  to  our  Article, 
though  we  own  that  the  new  virtue  ought  to  be  practised  :  for 
the  case  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  purpose  ]  of  the  Article ; 
nor  can  any  dispute  about  it  turn  upon  opposite  interpretations 
of  Scripture,  which  is  the  case  with  all  our  Christian  Articles 
of  Religion. 

Lastly,  when  you  have  found  a  virtue  which  you  fancy  is 
not  supported  by  Scripture,  you  have  no  authority  to  enforce 
it.  Can  you  say,  it  is  "  necessary  to  Salvation  ?"  All  men 
have  a  right  to  oppose  you,  and  to  question  such  necessity  ; 
and  run  what  hazards  they  please.  You  cannot  "  require"  of 
any  man  that  he  should  believe  what  you  assert :  and  therefore 
our  present  proposition  remains  unshaken. 

But  how  wonderful  is  it  that  the  moral  part  of  the  Scrip 
tures  should  be  so  framed  as  continually  to  give  a  sanction  to 
virtue,  of  every  kind,  and  in  every  stage  of  its  progression  ! 
whether  its  improvements  happen  to  be  quicker  or  slower!  How 
astonishing,  that  moral  precepts,  published  as  these  were,  should 
be  thought  more  and  more  excellent,  in  proportion  to  the 
advancement  men  make  in  virtue,  taste,  and  wisdom  !  I  verily 
believe  this  to  be  the  fact;  and,  if  it  is,  how  absurd  does  it 
make  the  supposition  appear,  that  such  morals  could  be  invented 
by  a  set  of  fishermen  and  mechanics 2 ! 

To  conclude  this  first  part  of  our  Article,  concerning  tra-  468 
dition.  Whatever  particular  traditions  we  may  think  it  right 
to  set  aside,  it  does  not  seem  as  if  we  ought  to  entertain  any 
general  prejudice  against  every  thing  that  is  unwritten.  In 
times  of  simplicity  and  unimproved  ignorance,  all  knowledge 
and  all  laws  must  be  unwritten,  or  traditional ;  and  in  every 
state  of  literature  there  must  be  some  bye-laws,  some  particular 
methods  of  obeying  general  rules,  which  cannot  well  be  com 
mitted  to  writing,  and  which  had  better  be  left  unwritten  and 
changeable:  there  will  also  be  respectable  interpretations  of 
what  has  been  written,  and  customary  practices  implying 
unwritten  regulations.  Sometimes  we  only  collect  previous 
regulations  from  their  present  presumed  effects.  This  is  appli- 


1  See  Book  III.  chap.  ix.  sect.  10. 
3  This  last  thought  is  much  the  same, 
or  entirely  the  same,  with  Book  I.  chap. 


xiii.  conclusion  ;  but  it  is  wanted  in  both 
places,  and  cannot  appear  uninteresting 
any  where. 


IV.   Vl.  5.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

II.  cable  to  Christianity.  For  some  considerable  time  there  were 
comparatively  very  few  written  records  in  the  Christian  Church; 
during  that  time  a  good  deal  must  go  on  tradition.  If  we  had 
any  verbal  directions,  which  had  been  really  given,  by  Christ  or 
his  Apostles,  to  the  newly-formed  churches,  we  should  value  them 
very  highly.  These  indeed  seem  advantages  not  to  be  expected 
in  any  degree  ;  but  very  early  customs  and  practices 3  in  such 
churches  afford  so  strong  a  presumption  of  their  having  been 
owing  to  such  directions,  as  to  demand  our  highest  respect. 
And  writings  of  fathers  and  decrees  of  councils  are  to  be  con 
sidered  in  the  same  light  ;  that  is,  as  conveying  an  evidence  of 
something  unwritten.  Early  comments  also  are  esteemed,  as 
telling  us  received  interpretations.  All  these  ought  to  have 
weight,  whenever  there  is  no  appearance  of  indirect  motives ; 
and  when  the  persons,  whose  accounts  we  receive,  were  compe 
tently  qualified  to  inform  us. 

469  But,  whenever  we  have  any  reason  to  distrust,  we  should 
be  at  full  liberty  to  neglect  every  thing  of  this  kind  ;  which  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  its  being  held  "  necessary  to  sal 
vation."  And  herein  consists  the  happiness  of  us  reformed 
Christians,  that  we  have  got  rid  at  once  of  an  enormous  quantity 
of  such  tradition,  as  we  could  not  but  believe  to  be  corrupt. 
In  a  course  of  years  there  will  generally  be  a  good  deal  to  be 
rejected  ;  but,  if  there  have  been  ignorance  and  superstition 
and  interest  to  generate,  and  artifice,  party  zeal,  ambition,  and 
enthusiasm,  to  nourish,  there  is  no  saying  to  what  degree  the 
corruption  may  have  increased.  At  our  reformation,  it  was 
high  time  to  extirpate  all  that  diseased  tumor  which  had  been 
formed.  The  same  notices  are  still  to  be  examined  as  at  first, 
and  the  same  respect  to  be  paid  to  whatever  appears  to  be  cre 
dible  evidence  ;  but  now  we  are  not  afraid  of  examining  freely: 
be  our  minds  ever  so  improved,  we  can  make  use  of  all  their 
powers,  to  judge  of  the  past,  and  provide  for  the  future. 

Yet,  when  we  say,  that  we  can  do  this,  we  must  not  forget 
the  distinction4  between  those  who  are  qualified  to  judge  for 
themselves,  and  those  who  ought  to  be  guided,  in  a  good  mea 
sure,  by  the  judgment  of  others — between  philosophers,  as  we 
have  called  them,  and  people.  Indeed,  the  distinction  is  never 
more  wanted  than  there;  for  all  imperfect  reasonings  with  regard 
to  traditions  seem,  on  both  sides,  to  owe  their  imperfections  to 

3  Wall  reasons  about  Infant-Baptism  on  this  principle. 

4  Book  II.  chap.  iv.  sect.  3,  &c. 


664  ARTICLES    OF     11ELIGION.  [IV.   vi.  6—8. 

the  want  of  it.     Those,  who  are  against T  all  traditions,  reason  II. 
as  if  all  men  were  philosophers:  those,  who  plead  most  strongly 
for  traditions2,  reason  as  if  all  men  were  ordinary  people. 

6.  2.  We  come  now  to  take  our  second  station,  and  con-  4?0 
sider  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  difference,  between 
our  Old  Testament  and  that  of  our  adversaries,  will  easily 
appear,  from  a  comparison  of  our  Article  with  the  acts  of  the 
fourth  session  3  of  the  Council  of  Trent ;  but  any  reasoning 
concerning  that  difference  will  come  under  the  third  part  of 
our  Article,  about  what  we  call  the  Apocrypha. 

If  we  were  here  to  attempt  to  deliver  all  the  historical 
reflections  which  might  occur  to  the  mind  of  a  thinking  person 
very  conversant  in  history,  we  must  stop  short ;  the  field  is  too 
wide  for  us ;  and  I  should  hope  that  we  might  receive  satis 
faction  concerning  the  truth  of  every  part  of  our  Article,  with 
out  involving  ourselves  in  perplexed  and  intricate  disquisitions 
concerning  events  of  very  remote  antiquity4. 

7-  With  regard  to  explanation  of  this  second  part  of  our 
sixth  Article,  I  do  not  see  that  it  is  wanted,  except  with  regard 
to  the  word  "  canonical"  which  has  been  considered  in  the 
Jirstb  Book.  It  may  be  as  well  to  add  here,  that,  in  the 
Article,  those  books  are  called  the  First  and  Second  Book  of 
Esdras,  which  we  commonly  call  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  employed  much  in  the  same 
way  ;  and  the  book  called  Nehemiah  is  a  sort  of  continuation  of 
the  Book  of  Ezra;  hence  the  Jews  often  counted  them  as  one  471 
Book  ;  and  hence  they  have  been  named  as  two  parts  of  the 
same  book;  its  name  taken  from  the  principal  person  concerned. 
Esdras  is  the  way  in  which  the  LXX.  write  the  Hebrew  name 
Ezra,  N1TV;  but,  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  second  book  is 
called  Nehemiah,  J"TOi"0.  The  Council  of  Trent,  session  4, 
say,  Esdrae  "  secundus  qui  dicitur  Nehemias." 

8.  We  will  come  then  to  that  which  seems  our  principal 
concern,  the  truth  of  this  second  part  of  our  Article ;  and  we 
will  endeavour  to  prove  that  we  may  have  sufficient  reason  for 


1  See  Lardner's  article  of  Vincent  of 
Lerins.  Works,  vol.  v. 

8  Popish  writers.  See  also  Vincentius 
Lirinensis,  p.  360.  Edit.  Baluz.  though, 
in  the  Galilean  Church,  the  bishops  and 
doctors  claim  a  right  to  think  and  judge 
for  themselves  and  the  common  people; 


but  the  popes  do  not  approve.    Mosheim, 
8vo.  vol.  iv.  p.  209. 

3  Council  of    Trent,    Sess.   4th,   De 
cree  1st. 

4  What  Collier  says,   vol.  i.  p.  284, 
about  the  settlement  of  the  Canon  by 
Ezra,  &c.  might  be  read  here. 

4  Chap.  xii.  sect.  2. 


IV.  Vl.  8.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  665 

II.  receiving,  as  sacred  and  authentic,  those  ancient  writings  which 
we  commonly  call  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Perhaps,  if  we  wanted  no  more  than  a  strict  proof,  it  might 
be  sufficient  to  use  the  single  argument,  which  we  used  for 
merly6,  that,  as  Christ  and  his  Apostles  acknowledged  the 
authority  of  these  books,  we  ought  also  to  acknowledge  it. 
This  argument  we  must  use  of  course;  but  there  seem  to  be 
some  reasons  independent  of  this,  which  are  not  to  be  neglected. 
Let  us  first  conceive  these  to  be  weighed  by  some  one  before 
the  coming  of  Christ,  and  then  let  us  see  what  reasons  a 
Christian,  as  such,  has  for  adopting  the  same  conclusion. 

Before  the  coming  of  Christ,  those  who  were  not  Jews  were 
Idolaters ;  yet  some  there  might  be  ready  to  acknowledge,  that 
"  an  idol  is  nothing 7 ;"  and  desirous  to  worship,  at  least  prin 
cipally,  a  supreme  invisible  God.  Nothing  could  be  more 
natural  for  a  person  so  disposed,  than  to  endeavour  to  unite  in 
divine  worship  with  those  who  would  take  no  offence  at  his 
opinions.  Let  us  conceive  what  would  be  his  reflections. 

472  4  Here  is  a  people  wonderfully  separated  from  the  rest  of 
the  world!  they  worship  no  idols,  but  acknowledge  one  supreme 
Deity,  spiritual  in  his  nature.  How  could  this  happen  ?  they 
are  no  way  improved  beyond  their  neighbours  in  philosophy 
or  arts.  The  account  they  give  of  this  matter  themselves  is 
quite  out  of  the  course  of  common  experience ;  but  yet  I  see 
no  other  which  can  solve  the  difficulty ;  and,  if  I  allow  theirs, 
I  must  confess  all  is  at  least  consistent.  Here  is  a  system  of 
government  which  no  lawgiver  can  have  invented ;  and  it  has 
been  carried  on  for  a  long  succession  of  ages.  The  Founder 
of  it,  as  far  as  any  man  is  entitled  to  be  called  a  founder,  seems 
to  have  something  in  common  with  the  Egyptians  ;  but  yet  he 
contradicts  the  notions  of  Egypt  in  several  important8  parti 
culars.  According  to  the  history  of  this  singular  people,  a 
series  of  miracles  has  been  performed  in  their  favour  and  sup 
port,  which  would  exceed  all  credibility  in  common  cases, 
but  here  it  seems  to  make  an  indispensable  part  of  the  whole 
plan; — the  religion  would  be  more  strange  without  the  mira 
cles  than  the  miracles  would  be  without  the  religion.  And 
these  miracles  are  believed,  not,  like  prodigies  amongst  us, 
only  by  the  vulgar,  but  by  all  the  most  eminent — by  the  rulers 
themselves.  Nay,  at  this  time  the  teachers  seem  not  only  to  be 

0  Opening  of  Introd.  to  Book  I.  chap.    I       7  1  Cor.  viii.  4. 
xii.  "  Div.  Leg.  Book  IV.  sect.  6.  prop.  3. 


606 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  9- 


sublime  and  pathetic  beyond  any  thing  I  can  conceive,  but  seem  II. 
also  to  be  continually  supported  by  divine  power ;   and  to  con 
sist  of  a  regular  succession.     Many  of  them  seem  to  have  had 
a  supernatural  power  of  fortelling  future  events. 

4  What  am   I   to  think   of  this  people  ?  if  what  they  say 
is 'not  true,  the  wonder  is  greater  than  the  aggregate  of  all  the  473 
miracles  of  which   they  boast.      I  therefore  give  myself  up  to 
worship  their  God ;   whose  unity  and  spirituality  accord  with 
all  my  best  notions. 

'Now  this  people  have  a  number  of  books  which  they  account 
sacred.  These  they  have  preserved  carefully,  and  read1  pub 
licly  ;  and  a  number  of  copies  of  them  have  been  in  different 
families 2.  Am  I  to  make  any  question  of  the  authenticity  of 
these  books  ?  if  I  do,  I  must  give  up  all  my  reasoning,  and 
revoke  the  belief  of  every  thing  which  I  have  now  concluded  to 
be  credible.' 

Can  we  doubt,  that  a  person,  who  reasoned  thus  before  the 
coming  of  Christ,  had  sufficient  ground  of  assent  to  the  authen 
ticity  of  our  Books  of  the  Old  Testament?  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  reasoning  which  any  person  may  not  make  use  of  at  this 
time. 

Indeed  it  should  be  observed,  that,  if  our  examiner  was 
supposed  to  live  after  the  building  of  the  second  temple3,  there 
are  some  of  the  above  expressions  which  he  could  not  use  with 
strict  propriety 4 ;  namely,  those  which  imply  a  set  of  prophets 
actually  existing;  but  then  he  has  a  longer  series  of  proofs. 
And  he  might  have  the  advantage  of  this  material  question, 
why,  if  the  prophets  were  impostors,  should  no  man  prophesy 
of  the  Messiah  after  Malachi  ?  who  lived  450  years 5  before 
Christ. 

We,  at  this  time,  though  we  may  not  see  this  evidence  in  474 
so  striking  a  light,  nor  be  so  much  affected  by  it,  have  a  strict 
right  to  make  use  of  it  in  all  its  parts. 

9.  We  are  next  to  see  what  reasons  a  Christian,  as  such, 
has  for  receiving  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  sacred  and 
authentic.  And  it  must  be  enough  to  say,  that  our  Saviour 
and  his  Apostles  constantly  acknowledge  them  as  sacred.  The 


1  See  Deut.  xxxi.  10. 

2  See  Deut.  vi.  7.     The  account  of  the 
single  copy  in  the  time  ofJosiah  (2  Kings 
xxii.  8)  is  understood  in  different  senses 
(see  Collier,  i.   p.  263).     Supposing  it 
literally    true,    copies    would    multiply 


afterwards. 

3  Built  415  years  before  Christ.  Blair. 

4  Collier's  Sacred  Interpr.   vol.  i.  p. 
281. 

5  Josephus contra  Apion.  lib.  i.  p.  1333. 
Edit.  Hud. 


IV.  vi.  9.] 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 


667 


II.  Jews  are  commanded  to  "search  the  Scriptures6;"  Timothy 
is  told  particularly  their  beneficial  effects7.  Prophecies  are 
frequently  applied  to  Jesus ;  and,  with  regard  to  the  greater 
and  more  extraordinary  events,  the  Jews  are  called  upon  to 
acknowledge,  that  "  thus  it  was  written 8  ,•""  that  it  behoved 
Christ  (the  expected  Messiah,  whenever  he  came)  to  suffer; 
and  so  on.  And  St.  Paul  expressly  calls  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
"  the  oracles  9  of  God."  A  point  so  clear  need  not  be  laboured. 
But  it  may  be  said,  this  is  only  to  acknowledge  the  volume 
collectively  ;  not  to  tell  us  that  the  particular  books,  which  we 
receive,  were  those  meant.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  we  re 
ceive  the  same  books  which  the  Jews10  received,  and  their  Scrip 
tures  are  authorized  by  our  Saviour,  without  any  exception. 
When  he  blames  the  Jews  for  superseding  their  Scriptures  by 
their  traditions,  he  gives  no  intimation  of  their  having  added 
to  their  Scriptures,  or  diminished,  or  in  any  way  corrupted 
them.  And  St.  PauFs  calling  them  the  "  oracles  of  God,1'  in 
the  manner  he  does,  seems  also  to  imply  that  he  found  no  fault 
with  the  usual  number,  nor  had  any  difficulties  on  that  head. 
475  One  passage  of  the  New  Testament  contains  a  division  of 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  the  "  Law  of  Mo 
ses"  "  the  Prophets?  and  "  the  Psalms  '  V  But  it  may  be 
said,  are  not  the  historical  books  here  omitted?  First,  we  might 
say,  that  if  there  were  any  books  merely  historical,  the  rest 
might  be  considered  as  the  Scriptures,  in  the  strict  sense,  and 
the  historical  books  as  an  illustration.  What  the  Jews  did  is 
not  always  what  they  were  commanded  to  do;  and  history  re 
lates  what  they  did.  The  Scriptures  were  the  same,  whatever 
use  was  made  of  them.  But  I  know  not  that  this  remark  is  of 
much  use.  The  books  called  historical  are  not  merely  such  ; 
and  the  authors  of  them  were  prophets  in  the  scripture  sense ; 
that  is,  inspired  persons  and  teachers:  consequently,  the  histo 
rical  books  must  either  come  under  Law,  Prophets,  or  Psalms. 
We  can  immediately  see  how  these  three  kinds  of  sacred  books 
must  be  the  most  eminent  and  important.  Law  commanded  ; 
Prophecy  was  requisite  to  shew  the  plan  of  God's  dealings  ;  and 
such  parts  of  the  Psalms  as  were  not  prophetic  would  act  as 
incitements  to  piety  and  virtue. 


6  John  v.  39.  7  2  Tim.  iii.  15. 

8  Luke  xxiv.  26,  46. 

9  Rom.  iii.  2;  ix.  4,  5. 

10  "  Jerom's  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 


ment  was  that  of  the  Jews."  Lard, 
vol.  v.  p.  21 ;  and  there  have  always 
been  Jews. 

11  Luke  xxiv.  44. 


668 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  9- 


Different  solutions  have  been  here1  offered;  but  the  true  II. 
answer  to  this  question,  concerning  our  Saviour's  omission  of 
the  historical  books  of  Scripture,  must  seemingly  come  from 
Josephus,  though  he  does  not  fully  explain  himself.  In  his 
first  Book  against  Apion,  he  says,  that  the  Jews  have  only  22 
books ;  which  he  divides  into  three  classes  ;  the  first  contains 
the  Law,  the  second  the  Prophets,  and  the  third  the  Psalms. 
In  the  first  class  he  reckons^ue  books;  in  the  second ,  thirteen ; 
in  the  third,  four.  How  our  39  books  are  more  particularly 
reduced  to  this  number,  does  not  seem  to  be  settled  by  any 2  476 
authority ;  but  we  have  evidence  enough,  from  the  modern 
Jews  compared  with  Josephus,  that  all  our  books  are  compre 
hended  in  the  three  classes.  The  Jews  used  to  be  desirous  to 
reduce  their  sacred  books  to  22,  because  that  was  the  number 
of  letters 3  in  their  alphabet ;  but  now,  we  are  told  4,  they  make 
twenty-four  books.  This  is  easily  accomplished,  as  the  Chron 
icles  may  be  either  as  two  books  or  one ;  the  minor  Prophets 
are  reckoned  as  making  one  book ;  and  so  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah,  &c. 

It  may  be  objected  to  our  present  argument  for  the  authen 
ticity  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  namely,  their  being 
acknowledged  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  that  our  Saviour 
might  mean  only  to  argue  with  the  Jews  on  what  they  acknow 
ledged,  in  order  to  convince  them  they  were  wrong  in  some  re 
spects.  And  it  does  indeed  seem  as  if  he  had5  sometimes  this 
end  in  view ;  but  it  cannot  thence  be  concluded  that  he  always 
had.  That  would  be  to  admit  the  fallacy  before  marked  out 6, 
that  because  a  remark  is  true  in  some  cases,  it  is  true  in  all. 
Besides,  how  could  it  answer  any  purpose  to  apply  prophecies 
to  Christ,  if  they  were  not  to  be  understood7  as  really  divine? 
And,  in  other  things,  we  cannot  conceive  our  Saviour  to  carry  477 


1  See  Lardner,  vol.  v.  p.  24. 

8  See  ways  of  reducing  them  in  Hud 
son's  Josephus,  fol.  vol.  n.  p.  1333. 
Also  in  Lard.  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  25. 

3  Jerom's  Prol.  Galeatus,  beginning. 

4  Broughton's  Dictionary,  under  Bible. 

5  Matt.  xii.  27.    John  x.  35.    See  Div. 
Leg.   vol.  iv.  8vo.  p.  306.     Sherlock's 
Discourses,  vol.  n.  p.  3,  top.    Also  Book 
I.  chap.  xvii.  sect.  19,  of  this;  and  II. 
ii.  13. 

*  Art.  ii.  sect.  35.  and  Art.  v.  sect.  15. 


7  Book  I.  chap.  xvii.  something  was 
said  of  Collins's  scheme,  now  and  then  ; 
that  is,  as  the  prophecies  are  applicable 
to  some  event  before  Christ,  it  is  not 
right  to  apply  them  to  him  also  : — they 
ought  therefore  to  be  applied  to  Christ 
only  in  an  argumentum  ad  hominem. 
But  here  we  do  not  want  to  see  how 
Christ  ought  to  have  applied  prophecies 
to  himself;  but  only  how  he  did  apply 
them.  If  he  considered  the  sacred  books 
as  authentic,  that  is  enough  for  our  argu 
ment. 


IV.  vi.  10.]  THE     HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  669 

II.  compliance  with  Jewish  notions  so  far  as  to  mislead  a  great 
number  of  his  disciples. 

The  Mosaic  dispensation  receives  great  support  from  the 
16th  chapter8  of  Grotius's  first  book  De  veritate  religionis 
Christianae:  the  chapter  is  entitled,  Testimonium  extraneorum, 
and  the  matter  of  it  seems  well  digested.  The  passages  refer 
red  to  may  exercise  the  diligence  of  the  student,  if  he  endea 
vours  to  form  a  judgment  concerning  the  weight  which  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  each.  To  co-operate  with  him  in  such  a  work 
would  carry  us  out  too  far.  The  authorities  are  now  reduced 
into  a  small  compass,  and  the  work  is  in  every  one's  hands  9. 
10.  3.  We  now  take  our  third  station. 
After  considering  what  our  Article  affirms  with  regard  to 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  come  to  what  it  lays  down 
respecting  those  books  which  have  made  pretensions  to  be 
ranked  in  that  number — those  which  we  commonly  call  collect 
ively  the  Apocrypha. 

As  our  proof  of  what  is  affirmed  will  be  chiefly  historical, 
we  shall  not  need  to  give  much  previous  history.  If  a  person, 
in  our  present  situation,  were  well  versed  in  history,  he  would 
naturally  take  a  view  of  all  the  sorts  of  writings  which  had  been 
thought  divine  by  some,  and  not  by  others ;  or  which  had  been 
composed  with  a  view  of  being  admitted  into  the  sacred  canon, 

478  or  read  in  religious  assemblies,  but  had  failed  of  success.  Now 
this  might  in  a  great  measure  be  done  by  recollecting  what  has 
been  mentioned  in  our  first  Book  ;  both  as  to  the  several  kinds™ 
of  writings  which  come  under  this  description,  and  as  to  the 
means  of  distinguishing  between  them  and  such  as  ought  to  be 
deemed  canonical. 

There  were  nine  sorts  of  writings  mentioned  :  on  the  pre 
sent  occasion,  the  sixth  sort  would  be  particularly  recollected — 
those  composed  by  weak  and  credulous  men ;  also  the  seventh 
sort,  called  heretical.  The  idea  would  also  recur,  that  writings 
may  be  useful  in  some  respects,  though  some  foolish  or  hurtful 
things  have  crept  into  them  ;  that  some  writings  have  acquired 
respect  by  bearing  respectable  names;  and  that  some  anony 
mous  writings  have  got  to  be  read  with  great  veneration,  or 
even  in  religious  assemblies,  by  a  successful  imitation  of  some 
writers  already  deemed  in  a  manner  sacred. 

8  Grotius  de  veritate,  lib.  i.  cap.  16.  Mosaic  dispensation,  similar  to  Lardner's 

9  Could  any  thing  be  formed  out  of       Heathen  Testimonies  to  the  Truth  of  the 
the  ancients,  Diodorus  Siculus,  &c.,  in       Christian  Religion  ? 

defence  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the          10  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  4,  5. 


670  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  vi.  10. 

But,  though  any  one  should  take  this  review  of  writings  IT. 
already  described,  and  in  some  degree  or  by  some  persons  held 
sacred,  yet,  in  the  first  Book,  we  were  attending  solely  to  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament.  Our  view  is  now  to  be  confined 
to  such  as  have  pretended  to  be  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  or 
Jewish  Scriptures,  before  the  time  of  Christ ;  and  such  as  we 
exclude  from  the  canon,  although  we  give  them  a  recommenda 
tion  as  moral  writings. 

All  the  books  enumerated  in  our  apocryphal  catalogue  are 
mentioned  as  canonical  in  the  4th  session  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  (though  they  never  before  were  received  by  any  formal 
act  into  a  church,  on  the  same  footing,)  except  the  third  and 
fourth  books  of  Esdras  and  the  Prayer  of  Manasses,  which  are 
not  mentioned  at  all.  I  do  not  see  that  the  Romanists  have  479 
any  thing  in  the  way  of  our  Apocrypha  ;  though  they  publish 
these  two  or  three  books  after  the  Apocalypse,  in  the  Latin 
translation,  which  they  authenticate;  alleging,  that  they  would 
not  have  them  perish,  as  they  have  been  quoted  by  some  holy 
fathers,  and  are  found  in  some  Latin  Bibles,  printed  and  manu 
script. 

Jerom  translated  some  of  these  books,  Tobit  and  Judith; 
but,  as  he  says,  at  the  desire  of  friends  l :  and  he  takes  care 
to  prevent  any  one  from  concluding  that  he  thought  them 
authentic. 

Grotius  has  thought  fit  to  write  a  comment  upon  them ;  but 
he2  calls  some  of  them,  the  book  of  Wisdom  in  particular,  I 
think,  interpolated  by  Christians.  As  his  Socinian  principles 
led  him  to  lay  this  charge,  and  he  seems3  to  fail  in  the  proof  of 
it,  he  incidentally  proves  that  the  books  contain  some  things  by 
which  orthodox  Christians  are  supported  in  their  opinions. 
These  I  take  to  be  descriptions  of  the  Atryo?,  and  the  Spirit  of 
God,  which  are  used  to  shew  that  St.  John  spoke  of  the  Word, 
and  others  of  the  Spirit,  personally,  according  to  notions  already 
established  amongst  the  Jews4. 

As  the  Papists  receive  our  apocryphal  books,  those  who 
have  desired  to  separate  the  farthest  from  them  have  been  most 
averse  to  these  books ;  as  Puritans,  Presbyterians,  &c. :  accord- 


1  See  Lard.  vol.  v.   p.  21.    Jerom 's 
Preface    to    Tobit.     The    friends    were 
Chromatius  and  Eliodorus. 

2  See  Grotius's  opening  on  Wisdom. 

3  See  Allix's  Judgment  of  the  Jews, 
chap.  f>. 


4  For  Son,  see  Wisd.  x.  5.  Ecclus. 
xi,viii.  10.  For  Spirit,  see  Jud.  xvi.  14. 
Wisd.  i.7;  vii.  7;  ix.  17 ;  xii.  1.  Ec 
clus.  xxxix.  6;  xLviii.  12.  For  Word. 
see  Wisd.  xvi.  26.  Bar.  v.  fl. 


IV.  vi.  11.] 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 


671 


II.  ingly,  they  have  been  a  subject  of  dispute5  amongst  Protestants, 
480  whenever  any  change  in  our  English  forms  of  worship  has  been 
debated. 

11.     For  the  reason  already  given  we  say  no  more  of  his 
tory  at  present.      Explanation  will  turn  chiefly  on  the  word 
Apocryphal.      It  has   had 6   several   meanings   given   it ;    one 
thus:   Apocryphal  writings  are  writings  CCTTO  TJ/S  KOVTTT^,  re 
moved  from  the  place,  receptacle,  chest,  where  the  sacred  books 
were  commonly  kept ;   but  apocryphal  is  generally  considered 
as  coming  from  airoKpvirTw,  to  conceal,   or    hide.      Yet   this 
derivation  does  not  reduce  the  senses  to  one ;   for  a  book   may 
be  hidden  or  secret  in  different  respects.      Perhaps  the  most 
ancient  idea  of  an  apocryphal  or  secret  book  is,  that  it  was  con 
cealed  from  the  people.     According  to  this,  books  were  apocry 
phal  when  they  were  thought  such  as  ought  not  to  be  read: 
which  agrees  with  the  ancient  division1  of  books,  into  canoni 
cal,  and  such  as  were  to  be  read,  and  such  as  were  apocryphal. 
The  foolish  and  hurtful  writings  would  be  amongst  the  apocry 
phal,  in  this  sense ;   and  it  has  been  thought  that  some  books 
were   kept   secret   from   the  people,   though    received    by    the 
Church.     (See  Lardner,  vol  in.  p.  529,  bottom).     Our  Apoca 
lypse  and  Canticles  are  in  England  very  little  read  to  the  people. 
But  a  book  may  be  hidden,  or  secret,  in  respect  of  the  name 
of  its  author; — though  this  is  not  so  likely  to  occasion  any 
difficulty  in   the  case  of  anonymous  books,  as  when  a  name  is 
affixed  to  it  which   there  is  reason  to  think   is  not  really  the 
name  of  its  author.     Consequently,  secret  or  apocryphal,  in 
this  way,  will  be  nearly  equivalent  to  spurious ;  and  will  soon 
come  by  custom  to  be  fully  equivalent   to  it.      In  this  sense 
4-81   apocryphal  is  sometimes  used8.      Lastly,  a  book  may  be  secret 
or  hidden  in  respect  of  that  authority  to  which  it  pretends. 
This  sense  is  associated  with  the  preceding,  as  authority  is  with 
author.      In  this  sense,  apocryphal  is  used  by  Augustin,  who 
thinks  it  worth  while  to  reject  one  of  the  senses  just  now9  men 
tioned  ;  viz.  that  apocryphal  books  were  such  as  were  purposely 
kept  secret  from  the  people.     His  idea  of  apocryphal  books  is, 
whose  origin  was  hidden  to  the  fathers — wanting  testimonials; 


6  See  Neal's  Hist.  Puritans,  Index; 
and  Candid  Disquisitions,  Appendix, 
sect.  6. 

6  Broughton's  Diet. 


7  See  Notes  on  Cyril's  4th  Catechesis, 
Edit.  Mill.    Oxon.  1  7<>:t. 

8  See  Lard.  vol.  n.  p.  363. 

9  Lard.  vol.  in.  pp.  521),  530. 


672 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  12. 


by  authors  unknown — of  character  suspected..     This  sense  is  II. 
nearest  ours  *,  already  given  2. 

We  may  close  this  explanation  by  observing,  that  the  words 
in  our  present  paragraph,  " the  Church"  do  not  seem  to  mean 
our  Church,  the  Church  of  England,  but  the  Christian  Church 
at  large.  However,  it  may  be  proper  to  observe,  that  our 
Church  does  not  read  the  whole  of  the  Apocrypha  in  religious 
assemblies.  We  do  not  read  either  book  of  Esdras,  nor  either 
book  of  Maccabees ;  nor  Hester,  nor  the  Song  of  the  three 
Children,  nor  the  Prayer  of  Manasses.  Our  Article,  or  Jerom 
quoted  in  it,  means,  probably,  that  Christians  do  not  object  to 
this  body  or  collection  of  writings,  so  as  not  to  read  them  pub 
licly — not  that  every  Christian  Church  reads  them  all.  Even 
the  Romanists  seem  to  omit  some. 

12.     We  come  next  to  our  proof. 

There  seem  to  be  but  two  propositions  in  the  part  of  the 
Article  now  before  us  which  require  proof. 

The  books,  here  opposed  to  those  called  canonical,  ought 
not  to  be  applied  "  to  establish  any  doctrine." 

The  Church  doth  read  these  as  moral :   and  Jerom  affirms  482 
the  same. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  principal  proposition.  And  I 
should  think  no  farther  proof  of  this  is  absolutely  needful,  than 
that  the  Jews  did  never  receive  the  books  in  question  as  canon 
ical.  What  judgment  can  any  one  now  form,  which  shall  be 
compared  to  that  of  the  ancient  Jews  ?  Nothing  can  be  more 
definite  than  Josephus^s*  receiving  the  usual  22,  and  then  re 
jecting  all  others. 

These  apocryphal  books  are  probably  not  directly  quoted 
in  the  New  Testament.  Allix  speaks  of  St.  Paurs  quoting 
them;  but  I  do  not  see  of  what  passage  of  St.  Paul  he  affirms4 
this ;  and  I  observe,  that,  in  the  Vulgate,  though  there  is  a 
regular  list  of  places  of  the  Old  Testament  which  are  cited  in 
the  New,  there  is  not  one  citation  from  any  of  the  apocryphal 
books.  The  Romanists,  who  must  have  made  this  list,  would 


1  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  2. 

2  Lardner,  vol.  vi.  p.  8,  end  of  sect.  3, 
gives  as  good  an  account  as  I  have  seen 
of  canonical,  ecclesiastical,  and  apocry 
phal.     It  is  very  short. 

3  Contra  Apion,  i.  p.  1333,  ed.  Hud- 
son. 

4  Wisd.  iii.  8,  has  been  borrowed  by 


St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  vi.  2.  So  says  Allix, 
p.  113:  borroiviny  is  not  quoting.  But 
he  says  quoted,  p.  74.  I  do  not  see  why 
1  Cor.  vi.  2,  may  not  come  from  Dan.  vii. 
22;  Matt.  xix.  28;  Luke  xxii.  30;  and 
Rev.  passim.  I  should  conceive  rather 
that  Wisd.  iii.  8,  might  come  from 
Daniel  vii.  22. 


IV.  V'i.  12.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  6/3 

II.  have  rejoiced  in  any  instance  of  Christ  or  his  Apostles  giving 
credit  to  the  disputed  books. 

Of  the  early  Christians  I  think  it  may  be  fairly  said,  that 
they  prove  no  doctrine  by  them ;  though  they  sometimes  intro 
duce  passages  on  account  of  some  moral  sentiment.  That  this 
is  not  giving  authority  to  such  books,  appears  from  St.  PanT* 
doing  the  same  at  Athens  with  heathen  poets.  "  It  was  no 

483  unusual  thing,"  says  Lardner5,  "for  the  ancient  Christians  to 
quote  Jewish  as  well  as  heathen  books,  without  intending  to 
give  them  any  authority." 

Those  Christian  writers,  in  early  times,  (suppose  the  first 
four  centuries),  who  give  Catalogues  of  canonical  books,  may 
be  said  to  omit  them ;  though  exceptions  may  sometimes  be 
found  of  a  single  book  or  so.  Bishop  Burnet  mentions''  several 
such  catalogues;  made  by  Melito7,  Origen,  (quoted  probably 
by  Eusebius8  Hist.  0.  25),  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
Hilary,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  and  Jerom.  He  might,  I. 
think,  have  added  Augustin,  though  he,  a  Latin  father,  admits 
some  of  our  Apocrypha.  Bishop  Burnet  closes  with  the  Cata 
logue  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea9,  on  which  he  dwells; — and 
indeed  its  decrees  are  of  great  weight,  though  the  prophecy  of 
Baruch  (with  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah)  is,  in  its  canon,  not 
separated  from  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  as  it  is  in  Cyril's 
Catalogue.  Any  little  exception  of  this  kind  will  seem  more 
strange  to  us  than  it  would  do  to  the  ancients ;  as  they  had 
not,  even  in  the  time  of  Augustin  (who  died  4,'>0),  a  regular 
established  catalogue  of  sacred  books,  but  were  searching  after 
them,  amidst  a  crowd  of  false  pretenders. 

Ambrose  seems  to  have  had  more  relish  and  more  respect 
for  apocryphal  books  than  the  generality  of  the  Christian  fa 
thers.  Lardner 10  mentions  one  passage,  in  which  he  quotes 

484-  Ecclesiasticus  in  the  way  of  proof;  but  Ecclesiasticus  ii.  o,  is 
merely  moral,  and  "testimoniis11  scripturarum"  may  only  mean, 
the  witness  or  weight  of  good  moral  writings.  The  word  pr<>- 

passage  quoted  is  Ecclus.  ii.  5.  Ps.  cxviii. 


6  Vol.  ii.  p.  05,  end  of  Hennas. 
(;  Pp.  110,  111,  8vo. 

7  Melito,  in  some  editions  of  Euseb. 
(4.  2(1),  calls  Proverbs  by  the  additional 
name  of  the   Wisdom  of  Solomon.     See 
the  note  in  Heading's  edit.  Cant.  17-0. 

1!  See  Lard.  n.  509. 
9  Lard.  vol.  iv.  p.  309. 
10  Vol.  iv.  p.  448,  from  Ambr.  on  Psal. 


153;  vide  liumilitatt-m  meant  ct  erne  »;<-, 
or  something  like  that.  Ambrose  says, 
one  may  use  Inii.iiHtdlcin  meam  in  trials, 
in  martyrdom,  &c.,  as  appears  fro.n  Kc- 
clesiasticus  ii.  5. 

11  Good   moral  •u'ril'iiiyx  used  to  have 


the  name  of  Scriptune.     Book  I.  chap. 
xii.  sect.  4. 


118,  (<mr  119),  T.  i.  p.  1224  E.    The 

VOL.  I.  43 


67* 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  12. 


phet  he  uses  in  a  large  sense,  if  he  does  not  mean  to  make  II. 
some  of  these  books  sacred ;   but  he  speaks  with  wamUh,  and 
unsteadily. 

Ambrose  was  far  removed  from  Judea,  and,  being  converted 
late  in  life,  had  probably  not  much  Jewish  learning — none  at 
all  before  he  was  bishop ;  but  Jerom  was  distinguished  for 
Jewish  learning,  and  is  called  the  most  learned  *  of  all  the  Fa 
thers.  I  should  think  his  authority  decisive  in  our  present 
question.  In  his  Prefaces,  which  are  published  with  the  Vul 
gate,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  he  expressly  sets  aside  every  one  of 
our  apocryphal  books ;  or,  if  he  does  not  set  aside  those  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  gives  up,  it  is  only  because  he  despised 
them ;  for,  in  other 2  parts  of  his  works,  he  speaks  of  them  more 
slightly  than  I  could  have  imagined. 

The  reasons  for  rejecting  some  of  the  apocryphal  books  are 
mentioned  in  the  titles,  respectively.  Jerom  gives  the  same — 
entirely  or  chiefly 3. 

We  seem   now  to  have  shewn  that  the  books  in  question 
ought  not  to  be  admitted  into  the  canon.      But  our  conclusion 
will  scarce  be  satisfactory,  unless  we  add,  to  what  is  here  said  485 
negatively,  something  of  a  positive  or  affirmative  sort. 

Although  Christians  might  sometimes  write  apocryphal 
books  belonging  to  the  Old  Testament,  yet  it  seems  agreed 
that  ours  were  all  written  by  Jews :  even  Grotius*  allows  this, 
who  would  have  wished  to  have  them  prove  the  works  of  Chris 
tians. 

They  appear  to  me  imitations  of  some  part  of  Scripture,  or 
something  in  the  way  of  supplement,  or  sequel.  The  third 
and  fourth  books  of  Esdras  profess  themselves  to  be  such. 
They  were  probably  written  from  a  natural  desire,  in  persons 
attached  to  their  country,  of  enlarging  on  any  interesting  part 
of  its  history;  and  the  latter  of  these  might  be  a  supplement 
to  the  first.  The  book  of  Tobit  reminds  one  of  Ruth  ;  and 
Judith  of  Deborah,  and  of  David  and  Goliath ;  as  also  of  the 


1  Hurd  on  Prophecy,  p.  221. 

2  See  Lard.  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  17—20. 
:!  Hesther  is  said,  in  the  title,  not  to 

be  found  in  the  Hebrew  ;  so  are  the  Song 
of  the  three  Children,  Susanna,  and  Bel 
and  the  Dragon.  Wisdom  is  called  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  ;  but  does  not  that 
mean  an  imitation  of  Solomon  ?  The  Pro 
logue  to  Ecclesiasticus,  by  the  Son  of 


Sirach,  gives  us  the  idea  of  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets  being  distinct  things;  and 
Law  and  the  Prophets  sometimes  meant 
the  whole  Old  Testament;  and  of  others 
writing  in  order  to  second  their  purposes. 
It  professes  Ecclesiasticus,  as  we  have  it, 
to  have  been  published  in  Greek. 
•J  Allix,  p.  67. 


IV.  Vi.  12.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

II  distresses  of  Hexekiah  from  the  Assyrian  armies.  Of  Hester 
there  can  be  no  question.  The  books  of  Wisdom*  and  Eccle- 
siasticus  seem  evidently  imitations  of  the  works  of  Solomon ; 
and  BarucJis  prophecy  has  been  owing  to  his  having  been  a 
secretary  to  Jeremiah.  The  three  writings,  cut  off  from  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  shew  plainly  to  what  stock  they  belong ;  and 
what  they  were  intended  to  imitate,  or  fill  out.  The  Prayer 
of  Manasses,  and  we  may  add  the  Epistle6  of  Jeremiah,  may 
have  been  attempts  to  succeed  on  the  credit  of  the  fine  psalm, 
"  By  the  waters  of  Babylon,"  &c.  The  first  Book  of  Macca 
bees  has  some  appearance  of  an  original  narration,  composed  on 
the  principle  just  now  noticed,  of  relating  handsomely  an  inte- 
486  resting  piece  of  national  history :  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees 
is  a  supplement,  as  before.  The  latter  Esdras  seems  to  me 
sometimes  to  imitate  ExekiePs  manner. 

What  I  have  farther  to  mention  may  be  introduced  in  the 
way  of  remarks  on  two  expressions  of  Bishop  Burnefs.  He 
says,  with  regard  to  the  Jews,  it  is  not  pretended  that  ever  these 
books  "were  so  much  as  known  to  them7."  And  afterwards, 
"  the  Christian  Church  were  for  some  ages  an  utter  stranger" 
to  them. 

As  to  early  Christians,  I  have  refreshed  my  memory  in 
Clement's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  in  Polycarp^s  to 
the  Philippians,  which  are  always  reckoned  genuine  ;  and  I  find 
quotations  from  some  books  of  our  Apocrypha,  made  with  the 
same  degree  of  exactness  as  those  from  the  canonical  books,  In 
the  former,  Wisdom  xii.  12,  is  quoted,  and  afterwards  the 
heroism  of  Judith  is  described.  In  the  latter,  there  is  a  quo 
tation  from  Tobit  (xii.  9).  And,  though  some  interpolations 
have  been  suspected,  I  should  think,  from  the  context,  that 
sentence  about  Judith  unlikely  to  be  one.  Not  that  it  proves 
Clement  to  have  thought  the  book  of  Judith  on  a  footing  with 
the  Scriptures ;  because  he  first  mentions  heathens 8  who  have 
run  into  danger  in  order  to  save  their  country,  and  then  Judith. 
But,  supposing  these  passages  genuine,  which  I  see  no  reason 
to  doubt,  the  Christian  Church  could  not  for  some  ages  be  an 
"  utter  stranger'1'1  to  our  Apocrypha. 


5  The  first  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus 
says,  that  the  author  of  that  book  "  did 
imitate  Solomon." 

°'  In  the  29th  chap,  of  Jeremiah  there 


tives  in  Babylon. 


7  On  the  Articles,  p.  110,  l!vo. 
"  The  same  tiling  has  struck  a  com 
mentator  in  Kussel's  Patres  Apostolici. 


is  an  epistle  from  Jeremiah  to  the  cap- 

43 — 2 


67<J  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  VI.  12. 

Lardner  says,  in  several l  places,  that  there  are  no  quota-  II. 
tions  of  apocryphal  books  in  the  apostolic  fathers ;  but  he  487 
means  apocryphal  books  written  in  the  early  times  of  Christi 
anity.  That  these  writings  should  not  be  "so  much  as  known" 
to  the  Jews,  appears  to  me  improbable.  The  writings  of  the 
Jews  have  been  more  destroyed,  in  proportion  at  least,  than 
those  of  any2  other  people :  yet  we  still  seem  to  have  some 
testimonies.  Allix  says 3,  that  Philo  quotes  our  apocryphal 
books.  Josephus,  in  the  part  where  he  mentions  the  22  books 
of  Scripture,  and  adds,  that  other  books  had  been  written  after 
the  time  of  M?lachi,  does  not,  to  be  sure,  mention  any  names 
of  authors ;  but  he  describes  the  kind  of  books  according  to 
our  idea  of  the  more  valuable  parts  of  our  Apocrypha.  He 
disowns  their  being  so  sacred  as  to  be  authentic ;  but.  he  seems 
to  treat  them  as  next  to  divine ;  nay,  as  if  nothing  hindered 
them  from  being  accounted  divine,  but  a  failure  in  the  regular 
succession  of  prophets.  In  his  history  of  the  Maccabees  %  he 
is  thought  to  have  followed  our  First  Book  of  Maccabees  ;  and 
in  his  account  of  Zorobabel,  to  have  adopted  the  ideas  of  the 
author  of  the  Third  Book  of  Esdras.  In  Hudson's  Josephus 
the  texts  are  put  in  the  margin  of  the  history;  so  any  one  may 
compare  them,  and  judge  for  himself.  Both  the  Prologues  to 
Ecclesiasticus  seem  to  speak  the  same  language  with  Josephus 
about  "other  books"  And  Jerom  says5  that  some  ancient 
writers  thought  that  Wisdom  was  written  by  Philo ;  but  pro 
bably  it  was  written  earlier ;  however,  Jeroia  must  think  it  was 
known  to  the  Jews. 

Allix  says  G,  that  Ramban"'  speaks  of  Ecclesiasticus  as  being  488 
in  Chaldee,  and  quotes  Jerom  for  Tobifs  having  been  in  the 
same8.  Now9,  whatever  books  have  been  in  Chaldee,  origi 
nally,  or  by  translation,  must  have  been  known  to  the  Jews. 
He10  accounts  for  their  having  been  laid  aside  by  the  Jews  from 
those  passages  which  Grotius  affirms  to  be  interpolated ;  which 
favour  the  Christian  cause.  The  Jews  are  said  to  speak  unfa- 

1  Vol.  vi.  p.  G62;  vol.  v.  pp.  358,  412,          7  Ramban,  R.  Moses  the  son  (Ben) 

of  Nachman.    "  Gerendensis  Hispanus." 


2  See  Chandler  on  Prophecy,  Pref. 
p.  xiv.  mentioned  Book  I.  chap.  v.  sect. 
15.  of  this.  3  Page  73. 

4  The  genuineness  of  this  work  is  sus 
pected.     See    Lard.    Works,    vol.  vn. 
p.  35. 

5  Pref.  to  Books  of  Solomon. 
"  Pages  68,  6J>. 


Claruit,  1212.  See  Buxtorfs  Abbrev. 
(Gironne,  near  the  Pyrenees  and  Medi 
terranean.) 

8  See  Jerom1  s  Preface  to  Tobit. 

!)  From  the  Author's  Prologue  to  Ec- 
clus.  it  appears,  that  his  grandfather  col 
lected  the  matter  of  that  book  in  Hebrew. 

"J  Page  23. 


IV.  VI.   12.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  677 

II.  vourably  of  Josephus ;  probably  because  so  many  testimonies11 
are  accidentally  to  be  deduced  from  him  in  favour  of  Christians, 
though  he  was  no  Christian  himself.  This  is  no  reason  why 
he  should  be  general1:)  undervalued.  Then  he  was  a  kind  of 
Roman — actually  with  the  Romans  in  camp  during  the  siege 
of  Jerusalem :  and  he  is  valued  by  heathens  as  well  as  Chris 
tians.  This  may  account  for  the  Jewish  prejudice. 

Allix,in  his  5th  chapter,  goes  through  the  whole  catalogue, 
and  speaks  more  learnedly  than  I  have  done  of  each  book, 
except  perhaps  the  Prayer  of  Manasses;  but,  after  what  has 
been  said,  I  will  content  myself  with  referring  to  him  for  parti 
culars,  and  will  only  take  the  result  of  his  inquiries  and  my 
own. 

It  seems  probable,  that,  under  the  Ptolemies  in  Egypt,  and 
the  SelucidcB  in  SyrL ,  authors  amongst  the«Jews  were  mime- 
489  rous  ;  not  orly  in  Alexandria,  but  at  Jerusalem  and  Babylon  : 
and  that  their  chief  purpose  in  writing  was  to  promote  good 
morals ;  but  that  they  executed  their  purpose  always  with 
some  sort  of  view  to  their  Scriptures  and  national  history — 
enlarging,  imitating,  supplying,  as  their  judgment  and  imagi 
nation  dictated.  J/jme  wrote  in  CJialdee  (or  possibly  Hebrew) 
but  more  in  Gree  ;  and  it  seems  conceivable,  that  some  works 
might  be  original  in  both  Hebrew  and  Greek 12.  Some  of  these 
authors  had  more  solid  understanding,  others  less  ;  but  they 
all  delivered  something  of  what  was  customary  in  the  notions 
of  the  Jews,  which  turned  frequently  on  the  expectation  of  a 
Messiah.  A  great  number  of  their  writings  have  been  de 
stroyed  ;  of  the  few  remaining,  some  seem  to  us  valuable ;  but 
the  Jews  do  not  value  them  as  they  ought,  being  determined 
to  reject  Jesus  as  Messiah,  and  indulging  themselves,  especially 
since  the  coming  of  our  Messiah,  in  an  immoderate  regard  for 
traditions,  and  a  boundless  range  of  childless  conceits  and  fan 
cies.  The  ancient  Jewish  writings  in  our  Apocrypha  arc  too 
rational  for  them,  as  well  as  too  moral: — I  speak  of  the  more 
respectable  part. 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  apocryphal  books  got  in  some 
places  into  the  canon  of  Scripture,  I  agree  with  Bishop  Burnct13. 
They  were  first  esteemed  as  pious,  and  as  related,  as  it  WCMV, 
to  Scripture  ;  then  they  were  read  in  Churches ;  and  the  cano 
nical  Scriptures  being  read  there  also,  these  got  associated  in 

11  See  authorities  collected,  Lard.  vol.   I      13  This  is  mentioned  Book  I.  chap.  vi. 
vii.  p.  34.  I  sect.  1.  I3  Page  111,  Ovo. 


678 


ARTICLES    OF    KKLIG1ON. 


[IV.  vi.  13. 


men^s  minds,  till,  at  last,  they  came  to  be  upon  one  and  the  II. 
same  footing. 

It  might  greatly  facilitate  their  reception  amongst  Chris 
tians,  if  they  seemed  in  any  way  to  favour  the  Christian 
cause. 

13.     The  second  proposition  remains :   that  is,  the  Church  490 
reads  the  apocryphal  books  as  moral;  and  Jerom  affirms  the 
same. 

It  may  be  thought  of  little  moment  to  prove  this,  unless  it 
were  proved  that  the  Church  ought  to  read  them  for  such  pur 
pose.  But  the  practice  of  those  whom  we  are  to  respect  is  a 
strong  argument  of  itself  for  the  continuance  of  such  practice. 
The  passages  already  mentioned  in  Clemens  and  Polycarp  may 
answer  our  purpose.  Athanasius  says *,  that  these  books 
"  were  appointed  by  the  fathers  to  be  read  by  those  who  first 
come  to  be  instructed  in  the  way  of  piety"  What  Jerom  says, 
in  his  Preface  to  the  books  of  Solomon,  is  doubly  to  our  pur 
pose,  as  it  proves  both  parts  of  the  proposition  now  before  us. 
"  Sicut  ergo  Judith,  ct  Tobias2  et  Macchabseorum  Libros 
legit  quidem  ecclesia,  sed  eos  inter  canonicas  scripturas  non 
recipit,  sic  et  hsec  duo  volumina  (Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus) 
legat  ad  sedificationem  plebis,  non  ad  auctoritatem  Ecclesiasti- 
corum  dogmatum  confirmandam."  And  lastly,  Bishop  Burnet 
proves3  the  general  custom  of  reading  things  not  canonical  in 
the  Church.  Indeed,  calling  some  writings  ecclesiastical,  which 
were  not  accounted  canonical,  shews  pretty  plainly  what  we 
mean  to  prove. 

With  regard  to  present  times,  though  there  may  be  some 
doubts  about  reading  in  Church  the  spurious  additions  to  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  yet  I  think  it  would  not  tend  to  edification  to 
banish  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom 4.  The  more  Grotius  insists 
on  some  passages  being  interpolated  by  Christians,  the  more  491 
plainly  do  we  see  the  propriety  of  reading  those  books,  which 
contain  those  passages,  in  Christian  Congregations.  And  the 
recommendations  which  we  find  of  them,  in  the  Christian  fathers, 
must  at  least  make  us  judge  candidly  and  cautiously  of  any  of 
our  Christian  brethren  who  are  inclined  to  pay  them  great 


1  See  Burnet,  p.  110,  8vo. 

2  Jerom,  Pref.  to  his  Translation  of  the 
1'ooks  of  Solomon  from  the  Hebrew.    In 
English,  Lard.  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  18. 

a  Articles,  p.  Ill,  tivo.    See  also  of 


this,  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  4. 

4  At  the  Reformation,  when  men  had 
been  brought  up  to  revere  them,  it  would 
have  been  both  imprudent  and  cruel  to 
set  them  aside. 


IV.  Vi.  14,   1.5.]  THE     HOLY     SCRIPTURES. 

II.  attention,  as  books  of  morality :  though  the  truth  probably  is, 
that  the  Christian  fathers  were  much  better  judges  of  the 
Scriptures,  than  of  ethics. 

14.  4.  We  are  now  come  to  our  fourth  and  last  station ; 
where  we  are  to  consider  what  our  Article  affirms  with  regard 
to  the  Books  of  the  New    Testament — whether  our  Church 
rightly  receives  them,  and  accounts  them  canonical. 

As  in  this  our  Church  agrees  with  other  churches,  we  might 
have  discussed  this  subject  in  ourjirst  Book ;  but  as  mention 
was  to  be  made  of  these  books  in  an  Article,  it  seemed  as  well 
not  to  anticipate  every  thing  that  should  be  said  upon  it.  No 
church  can  well  compose  a  set  of  doctrines  without  settling  a 
canon  of  Scripture. 

But,  though  something  has  been  deferred,  yet  we  have 
employed  eight  chapters  of  the  first  Book  in  proving  the  autho 
rity  of  the  New  Testament.  The  only  question  is  now,  of 
what  ivritings  does  the  New  Testament  consist  ?  Besides  those 
which  have  been  universally  acknowledged  as  divine,  there  are 
some  now  found  in  our  volume  whose  authority  has  been  con 
troverted  ;  a  thing  so  well  known,  as  to  divide  the  writings  of 
the  New  Testament  into  two  classes — the  o/jLoXoyovneva*  and 
the  dvTiXeyofjieva.'  Are  we  safe  in  admitting  these  last  into  our 
canon  ?  Some  examination  of  this  point  may  be  proper,  in 
492  order  to  dispel  doubts  and  suspicions :  it  may  also  be  useful  as  a 
specimen  of  the  manner  of  inquiring  into  the  authority  of  parti 
cular  books.  What  writings  we  mean  was  mentioned  formerly6. 

15.  Here,  our  first  reflections  must   be  historical.     We 
have  not  any  exact  and  minute  accounts  of  the  publication  and 
reception  of  the  controverted  books  or  writings  ;   we  are  only 
told,  after  a  considerable  time,  that  doubts  had  been  enter 
tained   about  them  at  some  times  and  in  some  places,  though 
they  had  been  received  by  many 7.     These  doubts  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  quite  cleared  up,  in  all  places^  even  in  the  fourth 
century;  nor,  with  regard  to  the  Apocalypse,  till  later8.    But  this 
is  exaggerated  and  misrepresented  by  Mr.  Toland,  when  lie 
says9,  of  the  books  in  question,  that  "they  were  rejected  a  long 
time  by  all  Christians,  almost  with  universal  consent.11    I  do 


5  Richardson  calls  them  the  first  Canon 
and  the  second  Canon. 

6  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  4.  Hebrews, 
James,  2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  Jude, 
Revelation.  7  Euseb.  3.  25. 


8  Bishop  Hallifax  on  Prophecy,  p.  2011. 

9  Amyntor.    See  Lcland's  Deist,  Let 
ter  3;  or  rather  Richardson's  Canon,  &c. 
p.  3,  and  39 :  mentioned  Book  I.  ch.  xii. 
sect.  4. 


680 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  Vi.  15. 


not  understand  that  any  of  them  was  ever  rejected^  properly  II. 
speaking;  because  rejection  implies  previous  examination;  and, 
I  think,  we  have  no  account  of  any  of  them  being  first  examined, 
and  then  set  aside.  They  seem  to  have  continued  without  suf 
ficient  notice — too  little  distinguished  from  the  crowd  of  writ 
ings  with  which  they  had  got  mixed ;  but  that  only  in  some 
places:  they  were  always  received  by  many,  (as  was  just  now 
observed  from  Eusebius  ]).  At  length  however  they  attracted 
notice;  they  were  all  examined,  by  different  persons  success-  493 
ively,  till  they  were  all  found  to  merit  what  they  claimed  ;  and 
then  they  were  separated  from  the  crowd,  and  received  due 
honour  from  the  Universal  Church.  The  delay  in  each  place 
was  probably  proportioned  to  the  difficulty  of  getting  due  infor 
mation  there ;  whether  that  difficulty  depended  upon  distance 
or  prejudice^  or  indifference-^  as  to  the  subject  of  the  writing 
neglected. 

This  sounds  well ;  but  still  you  will  say,  why  were  these 
writings  ever  controverted  at  all  ?  I  would  answer  briefly, 
because  they  were  Catholic  Epistles" :  and  on  this  will  a  more 
particular  answer  turn.  But,  in  opposition  to  this  account, 
it  must  immediately  occur,  that  the  Apocalypse  is  not  an 
Epistle  at  all ;  and  that  the  second  and  third  Epistles  of  John 
are  each  of  them  addressed  to  a  private  person.  One  word, 
to  obviate  this  difficulty,  will  leave  us  free  to  pursue  our 
intended  reply.  Suppose  the  Apocalypse  authentic,  yet  can 
you  wonder  at  its  not  being  generally  received  all  at  once  ?  if 
you  had  seen  it  amongst  eighty3  or  an  hundred  books,  all  claim 
ing  to  be  received,  would  you  have  dared  to  take  it  out  of  the  494 


1  Of  the  Apocalypse  Eusebius  says, 
dCcTova-i,  Euseb.  3.  25;  which  is  trans 
lated,  ex  albo  scripturarum  e.rpunywit ! 
Some,  says  Eusebius,  aOeToDo-i  the  Apo 
calypse,  and  some  reckon  it  among  the 
ofj-oXoyovfjicvct :  aOcrely  seems  opposed  to 
ofj.o\oye'iv :  translated  twice  in  Lard. 
Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  220,  and  vol.  vi. 
p.  I5!)l.  Lardner  uses  the  word  reject;  I 
mean  in  the  passage  about  the  Ep.  to 
Hebrews,  Euseb.  3.  3.  The  above  pas 
sage,  Euseb.  3.  25,  about  the  Apocalypse, 
is  translated,  Lard.  vol.  iv.  p.  227,  and 
the  word  reject  is  used.  On  reflection,  it 
seems  as  if  the  controverted  pieces,  or 
seme  of  them,  might  sometimes  be  re 
jected  after  being  noticed;  though  they 


might  be  more  frequently  neglected,  or 
considered  slightly. 

2  It  occurred  to  me  here,  that  1  Peter 
and   1  John  are  also  Catholic  Epistles, 
yet  were  never  controverted.    That  might 
happen,  and  yet  the  others  might  be  ob 
structed  by  being   Catholic.     The  first 
writing  of  Peter,  and  the  first  of  John, 
might    c^ome    out    under    circumstances 
which  might  occasion  immediate  success; 
and  yet  the  worth  of  the  subsequent  ones 
might  be  less  striking  :  and  more  spurious 
writings  might  rival  them. 

3  Leland,  p.  44.     Of   this  Book   1. 
ch.  xii.  as  before :  forty  Gospels,  thirty-six 
Acts,  known ;  and  many  must  have  been 
lost. 


IV.  VI.  16.]  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  681 

II.  crowd,  except  you  had  received  particularly  good  information 
concerning  its  author?      With  the  progress  of  the  Apocalypse, 
there  was  some  regress.      Its  claim  to  be  treated  as  Scripture 
was  sacrificed  to  a  controversy  about  the  Millennium  ;   as  was 
that   of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  a  dispute  about   the 
efficacy   of  repentance.      And   certainly    the    Apocalypse    was 
catholic,  though  not  an  epistle;  no  particular  Church  had  the 
charge  of  it,  or  the  care  of  circulating  it.     And,  if  the  second 
and  third  Epistles  of  John  are  not  properly  catholic,  (though 
the  ancients  call  them  so4),  they  must  be  private  letters  :  would 
not  that  have  been   sufficient  to  have  prevented  your  making 
them   canonical  ?     Hebrews,  James,   2  Peter,   and    Jude,   are 
Catholic  Epistles  undoubtedly.      It  has  been  generally  under 
stood,  that  they  were  addressed  to  Jews  wheresoever  dispersed; 
but,  though  we  take  Lardners  opinion,  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  was  addressed  to  Christians  in  Judea,  who  had  been 
Jews  ;  James,  to  all  descendants  of  Jacob,  whether  converted  to 
Christianity  or  not ;  2  Peter  to  all  converts,  but  particularly  to 
those  who  had  been  Gentiles  ;  and  Jude  to  all  converts  ; — still 
the  principal  idea  remains  unaffected,  that  the  persons  addressed 
were  not  collected   in  any  one  city,  but  were  dispersed  without 
regularity    through  a  number   of  places.      So  that  it  was  no 
one's  particular  business  to  accomplish  or  promote  their  uni 
versal  reception. 

III.  16.    Let  us  then  endeavour  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place 

1  of  early    Christians,   and  see  how   writings,   circumstanced  as 
these  Catholic  Epistles  were,  might  be  authentic,  and  yet  not 
at  once  universally  received. 

1.  First,  take  a  geographical  view  of  the  countries  in 
which  Christianity  was  professed  in  the  fourth  Century.  Ex 
amine  the  extent  of  the  Eastern  and  Western*  Church,  and 

2  you  will  readily  admit,  that  a  writing  which  was  to  be  sepa 
rated  by  careful  examination  from  a  number  of  other  writings 
might  reach  some  places  a  long  time  before  it  reached  others. 
There  might,  indeed,  accidentally  be  a  communication  between 
one  place  and  another  very  distant  from  it,  not  affecting  inter 
mediate   places;   while  there  was  no  intercourse  between   two 


4  See  Lard.  vol.  vi.  p.  M2. 

5  In  Bingham's  Antiquities,  book  IX, 
we  have  ecclesiastical  maps  ;  particularly 
of  the   three  patriarchates,  of  Antioch, 


trace  out  the  extent  of  the  See  of  Rome, 
by  the  directions  of  ecclesiastical  his 
tory,  at  any  period  :  or  that  of  any  of 
the  European  churches.  Indeed  Bing- 


Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem;  nor  can  it   i   ham  might  suffice  for  the  present  pur- 
be  difficult,  in  any  book  of  geography,  to   '  pose. 


682  AllTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  vi.  l6, 

places  very  near;  but,  in  calculating  the  effect  of  distance,  some  III, 
kind  of  average  might  be  taken  of  communication  or  inter 
course.  And  then  we  might  say,  if  a  bishop  of  Sardis  is 
obliged  to  travel  into  the  East,  in  order  to  inform  himself  of 
the  several  claims  of  various  writings,  how  is  an  epistle  ad 
dressed  to  inhabitants  of  Judea  to  arrive,  in  its  proper  form 
and  character,  on  the  coasts  of  Spain  or  Italy  ? 

2.  We  should  consider  what  great  obstructions  and  delays 
must  arise  from  a   want  of  a  legal  provision  for  conveyance, 
such  as  our  posts,  apparitors,  See.,  and  we  may  add,  from  a 
want  of  the  art  of  printing.     Some  writings  used  to  be  called 
indeed  eyKwXioi,  because  they  were  to  be  sent  round1;   that 
is,  after  being  copied  by  one  church,  they  were  to  be  forwarded 
to  another :  but  this  would  be  slow  work ;   and  the  copy  would 
sometimes  miss  its  way,  or   stop  short,    or   be   lost2.      Then 
suppose  it  made  a  considerable  progress,  nay  a  great  one ;  that 
would  be  nothing  to  the  present  question,  which  is  only,  why 
were  not  all  our  sacred  writings  at  once  imiversal?  that  they 
were  always  received  in  many  places,  cannot  well  be  questioned. 

3.  Gospels  must  spread  more  than  epistles.     No  one  could 
well  go  to  teach  Christianity  any  where  without  having  a  gospel  3 
with  him.     Epistles  of  any  sort  would  have  a  more  confined 
and  local  reference;   so  that  the  carrying  of   them  to   every 
place  would  not   be   wholly   indispensable :    still  less   needful 
would  it  be  to  carry  round  the  Apocalypse. 

4.  Epistles  to  particular   churches   Avould   sooner   be   ac 
knowledged  by  any  individuals,  and  so  afterwards  universally, 
than  epistles  to  any  converts  that  were  dispersed.      Suppose, 
for  instance,  any  one  to  ask  himself  whether  the  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  was  to  be  received,   and,   at   the   same  time, 
whether  he  was  to  receive  the  Epistle  of  James  ; — he  might  be 
sure  to  find  the  former  at  a  known  place,  and  many  witnesses 
ready  to  vouch  for  its  genuineness.      And  this  certainty  would 
have   weight   even   at   a  distance,  nay,   at  any  distance  from 
Corinth ;   whereas  the   evidence  of  the  latter  would  be   more 
scattered  and  feeble. 

5.  Supposing  the  progress  of  a  writing  once  delayed,  or  its 
reception  disputed,  then,  if  Christianity  kept   spreading,   the 
longer  any  doubts  continued,  the  greater  difficulty  would  there 

1  See  Du  Cange,  ey/cikXm,  and  eyKvx-   \    that  no  Scriptures  have  been  finally  lost. 
Xttt  y/oa/i/ia-ra,  circular  letters.  See  vol.  vi,  last  chapter. 

2  Lardncr  gives  good  reasons  to  think   I 


IV.  Vi,  17-19-]  THK    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  683 

III.be  found  in  accomplishing  the  end  we  are  speaking  of.  Not 
but  the  writing  might  go  on  continually  gaining  ground:  but 
it  would  be  longer  in  becoming  universal. 

6.  The  longer  the  reception  of  any  writing  was  delayed,  the 
more  spurious  works  would  it  have  to  fight  its  way  through. 
Every  one  of  our  sacred  pieces  must  have  its  claims   set  in 
opposition  to  the  claims  of  a  great  many  others :   the  more  of 
these  it  has  to  contend  with,  the  longer  it  must  be  in  making 
its  claims  universally  allowed;  and  such  competitors  would,  for 
some  time,  increase  and  multiply.     At  any   time,    the   Prote- 

4  vangelium3  of  James  might  retard  the  Epistle  of  James;  but 
the  more  of  such  obstacles  stood  in  the  way,  the  greater  would 
be  the  retardation. 

7.  One  principal  thing  to  help  forwards  a  disputed  book 
or  writing  would  be  internal  evidence ;  but,  though  nothing 
works  more  surely,  yet  nothing  works  more  slowly :  common 
people  will  for  a  while  swallow,  or  rather  devour,  great  ab 
surdities,  though  after  a  time  they  will  be  convinced  by  better 
judges:   indeed  internal  evidence  is  only  evidence  to  the  best 
judges,   at  first.      The  internal   evidence    of  the   Apocalypse 
must  work  very  slowly  indeed.      Before  the  completion  of  some 
of  the  prophecies  which  it  contains,  it  must  be  received  merely 
on  the  probability  of  its  being  written  by  St.  John. 

17.  I    look    upon    these    observations    to    be    historical ; 
though  their  tendency  is,  to  shew  how  the  controverted  pieces 
of  the    New   Testament   might   be    obstructed,  even   if  really 
authentic.     And    I    should    hope    that    such    remarks    might 
moreover  tend  to  fix  our  thoughts   on  the  growth  of  Chris 
tianity,  and  make  it  an  interesting  subject.     They   therefore 
open  the  subject  to  us,  and  explain  its  nature;  and  they  may 
be  called  explanatory,  as  well  as  historical.     As  the  Article  has 
no  words   about   controverted  books,    I    shall  offer    no    other 
explanation. 

18.  We  come  then  to  our  proof:  which  is  only  concerned 
with  one  proposition. 

4  The  seven  controverted  books  of  the  New  Testament 
ought  to  be  deemed  canonical? 

We  will  prove  this  of  these  books,  first  collectively,  then 
separately. 

19.  Collectively.     This  has  been  already   done  in   some 

3  See  Jeremiah  Jones^or  Fabricius's  Codex  Apocryphus,  mentioned  before,  Book  I. 
chap.  xii.  sect.  4. 


684 


ARTICLES    OF     RELIGIOX. 


[IV.vi.20. 


measure.  Their  being  acknowledged  upon  examination,  after  III. 
being  confounded  with  a  number  of  other  books,  implies  a  good  5 
deal :  a  more  severe  trial  than  if  they  had  met  with  a  welcome 
reception  on  their  first  appearance.  We  might  also  conceive, 
that,  had  the  time  of  their  probation  been  shorter,  this  argu 
ment  in  their  favour  might  havj  been  less  powerful.  The 
want  of  credulity  of  the  Fathers  In  the  matter  now  before  us, 
like  the  want  of  belief  in  St.  Thomas,  is  a  very  powerful  con 
firmation  of  our  faith.  And  it  must  be  a  pleasing  reflection  to 
any  one  under  doubt  about  any  of  these  books,  to  think,  that 
its  title  had  been  examined  carefully,  by  better  judges  than 
himself,  when  the  materials  for  judging  were  much  more  attain 
able  than  at  present.  Pursuing  this  thought,  we  ask,  how  it 
happens  that  all  Christians  are  agreed  on  the  subject  of  their 
authenticity  ?  This  is  no  ordinary  phenomenon.  When  a 
point  has  once  been  disputed,  it  generally  continues  to  be  dis 
puted  ;  but,  in  this,  there  is  no  dissenting  church ;  nay, 
scarcely  an  hesitating  individual.  To  offer  as  a  reason,  that 
the  authenticity  of  the  books  in  question  has  been  settled  pub 
licly  in  a  council,  is  to  say  little.  Those  who  composed  that 
council  must  have  received  conviction  as  p.ivate  men. 

I  will  now  read  to  you  some  catalo  >es  of  ancient  times, 
from  which  it  appears  when  the  controverted  books  of  our  New 
Testament  had  been  received  amongst  those  always  acknowledged 
as  canonical.  And  the  Letter  of  Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  to 
Onesimus,  though  only  on  the  Old  Testament,  might  give  us  a 
right  feeling  of  the  situation  of  Christians  before  the  canon  was 
settled.  Cyril' s  Catalogue,  and  that  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea, 
may  be  sufficient  for  the  present.  Those  who  choose  to  consult 
more  catalogues,  may  find  their  in  Lardner's  Works,  by  his 
Indexes1;  or  in  that  chapter  of  the  Supplement  to  his  Credi-  6 
bility  which  treats  of  the  Order  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Tes 
tament2.  Athanasius  and  Rujfinus  not  only  give  their  own 
opinion,  but  the  evidence  of  writings  now  lost3. 

20.  Separately.  We  begin  with  the  Epistle  to  the  He 
brews.  There  are  two  parts  in  each  proof;  we  would  both  see, 
that  the  work  in  question  is  written  by  an  apostle,  and  that 
there  are  sufficient  witnesses  of  its  being  sacred.  That  is,  we 
would  prove  its  being  genuine*,  and  its  being  authentic.  These 


1  Particularly  Index  V.  under  Testa 
ment.  2  Chap,  xxiii. 
3  llichardson's  Canon,  pp.  31',  40 ;  or 


Lardner,  as  above. 

4  Genuine,  distinguished  from  ait(Jien~ 
tic.  Book  I.  chap.  xii.  sect.  ?. 


IV.  vi.  21.]  TUB  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  685 

III.  two  proofs  may  unite  their  force,  but  they  are  strictly  inde 
pendent  of  each  other5.  If  a  writing  is  proved  authentic,  it 
is  to  be  received,  whoever  wrote  it;  if  an  Apostle  wrote  it, 
it  is  to  be  received  on  his  account0;  and  the  evidence  that 
a  writing  is  either  genuine  or  authentic,  may  either  be  inter 
nal,  or  external.  During  our  separate  proofs,  the  state  of 
early  Christians  now  described,  as  to  their  having  a  number  of 
books  claiming  to  be  received  as  sacred,  should  be  constantly 
kept  in  mind. 

21.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  may  be  proved  authentic 
by  a  number  of  credible  witnesses.  Barnabas7,  Clemens  Ro- 
7  manus,  and  Poly  carp,  may  be  reckoned,  as  they  shew  that  the 
matter  of  it  was  familiar  to  them,  though  it  is  not  their  custom 
to  quote  formally.  The  force  of  this  argument  is  best  seen  by 
looking  into  Lardner's  Credibility,  &c.  There,  in  the  account  of 
each  father,  it  is  easily  found  what  Scriptures  he  quotes,  or 
alludes  to.  And  in  his  Supplement,  the  opinions  of  the  fathers 
with  regard  to  each  Epistle  may  be  found  collected.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  quoted  by  Irenaeus,  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  Athanasius,  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  with  par 
ticular  attention  by  Origen.  We  may  add  the  authority  of  the 
Councils  of  Laodicea  (in  364,  or  about  that  time,)  and  Carthage 
(in  397,  the  third).  These  authorities  do  not  go  lower  than 
the  fourth  century ;  but  such  as  are  later  are  useful  in  shewing 
that  all  disputes  were  at  an  end.  However,  I  will  only  mention 
Theodoret;  who  told  the  Arians  that  they  ought  to  respect  this 
Epistle,  as  one  which  had  been  read8  as  early  as  the  apostolic 
writings.  These  witnesses  seem  sufficient.  A  student  who 
chose  to  attend  particularly  to  this  subject,  might  read  that 
part  of  Lardner's  Supplement  to  his  Credibility  which  is  about 
this  Epistle  in  particular9. 


5  Grotius  and  Le  Clerc  think  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  authentic,  but 
not  the  work  of  St.  Paul.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  thought  the  Apocalypse  sa 
cred,  and  written  by  a  John,  but  not  the 
Evangelist. 

(i  See  Bishop  llallifax's  quotation, 
p.  211,  from  Erasmus;  though  it  belongs 
properly  to  the  Apocalypse. 

7  Lardner  does  not  allow  that  Barna 
bas  does  refer  to  Hebrews,  though  he 
calls  Moses  a  servant  (Heb.  iii.  5),  and 
in  the  capacity  of  a  servant  opposes  him 
to  Christ.  Barnabas  does  not  indeed  at 


the  same  time  call  Christ  a  Son,  but  still 
the  opposition  strikes  me:  nor  does  any 
thing  come  near  obviating  it  but  the  sup 
position,  that  Barnabas  might  originally 
have  the  same  ideas  with  St.  Paul.  See 
Lard.  Works,  vol.  n.  p.  20. 

!!  Theodoret  begins  his  Preface  to 
Hebrews  with  saying,  that  the  Arums 
endeavoured  to  lessen  its  authority;  but 
I  have  omitted  making  an  exact  reference 
to  the  passage  from  which  this  was  taken. 
I  may  tind  it  hereafter. 

y  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  381 — 
415. 


G86 


ARTICLES    OF    KELIC.ION. 


[IV.  Vl.  22. 


22.     As  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  anonymous,  we  can- III. 
not  perhaps  be  properly  said  to  prove  its  genuineness ;  but  we 
may  prove  that  it  is  written  by  an  Apostle ;   which  is  all  we 
have  in  view  in  proving  any  epistle  to  be  genuine.     We  will  S 
now  therefore  offer  some  reasons  for  concluding  that  it  is  written 
by  St.  Paul.     Grotius  and  Le  Clerc  are  of  a  different  opinion: 
but,  though  they  are  learned  men,  we  find  ourselves  obliged  to 
differ  from  them  sometimes. 

Compare  Heb.  v.  12,  with  1  Cor.  iii.  2 ; — Heb.  xii.  3,  with 
Gal.  vi.  9 ; — Heb.  xiii.  16,  with  Phil.  iv.  18.  And  compare  con 
clusions1.  Christ  is  called  Mediator  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He 
brews  three  times,  and  twice  in  the  Epistles  always  ascribed  to 
St.  Paul,  and  no  where  else  in  Scripture.  St.  Paul  makes  use 
of  allusions  to  the  public  games ;  and  such  allusions  are  found 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews2. 

2  Pet.  iii.  15,  16,  is  often  used  to  prove  that  Paul  wrote  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  argument  takes  for  granted  the 
authority  of  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  but  that  is  proved 
independently.  The  reasoning  I  take  to  be  this :  Peter  writes 
to  the  same  persons  that  Paul  had  addressed  in  some  Epistle  of 
a  singular  nature — so  strictly  singular,  that  it  might  be  contra 
distinguished  to  the  rest  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles ;  or,  what  seems 
still  stronger,  to  "all  his  Epistles"  (ver.  16.).  Now,  how  can  this 
be  solved  so  well  as  by  making  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  be 
one  class,  and  the  rest  of  his  Epistles  another?.  Lardner3  will 
not  use  this  passage,  because  he  supposes  Paul  to  write  to  Jewish 
converts  in  Judea,  and  Peter  to  converts  in  general.  But,  on 
this  supposition,  Peter  and  Paul  would  address  some  of  the 
same  converts  :  and  it  seems  quite  clear,  from  ver.  15,  that  they 
did  write  to  some  of  the  same  persons,  whoever  they  were. 
The  "things  hard  to  be  understood,"  seem  to  be  in  the  Epistles  9 
to  the  Romans  and  Ephesians  particularly  ;  and  the  "as  also" 
does  seem  to  me  to  make  one  class  of  what  went  before,  and  an 
other  of  what  follows ;  and  I  cannot  divide  the  writings  of  Paul 
so  well  into  two  classes,  as  by  supposing  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  singly  to  make  one  of  them. 

In  Heb.  xiii.  23,  Timothy  is  spoken  of  in  a  manner  like  that 
of  St.  Paul ;  and  one  can  scarce  conceive  any  person  besides 
St.  Paul  to  speak  of  him  in  such  a  manner.  Such  is  the  inter- 


1  Gibson  gives  more    instances, — 3d 
Past.  Letter :  see  Contents. 

2  Compare  Heb.  xii.  1,  with  1  Cor.  ix. 


24,  and  Phil.  iii.  1,  4. 
3  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  VI.  p.  404. 


IV.  vi.  23.] 


TIIF,    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 


G87 


1 1 1. nal  evidence  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  St.  Paul's. 
We  may  add  as  much  external  almost  as  we  please. 

This  Epistle  is  ascribed  to  St.  Paul  by  many  of  the  ancients, 
whose  names  may  be  seen  in  Lardner4  and  in  Bishop  Gibson's 
third  Pastoral  Letter.  All  those,  who  reckon  fourteen  Epistles 
of  Paul,  ascribe  that  to  the  Hebrews  to  him.  Origen  intended* 
a  proof  that  Paul  wrote  it ;  whether  he  executed  his  intention 
or  not,  it  shews  his  opinion;  but  Lardner  thinks0  he  did 
execute  it,  in  his  Homilies. 

23.  Here  we  may  rest  our  direct  proof,  though  other 
arguments7  are  to  be  found.  The  indirect  proof,  in  the  present 
question,  is  very  considerable;  that  is  to  say,  answering  objec 
tions  opens  the  subject  farther,  and  confirms  our  reasoning. 

Obj.  1.  If  this  Epistle  had  such  good  evidence  for  it  as  is 
here  said,  why  was  it  not  at  first  better  received  in  the  Christian 
world  ?  In  answer,  we  might  first  apply  what  has  been  said 
about  the  controverted  pieces  in  general.  And  we  may  add,  it 
10  was  the  less  readily  received  on  account  of  its  being  anonymous. 
If  you  ask,  why  then  was  it  anonymous?  you  swerve  from  the 
present  business.  It  seems  to  have  been  received  wherever  it 
was  known,  till  writings  grew  too  numerous.  In  the  Eastern 
Church,  that  is,  in  its  own  country,  or  near  it,  there  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  any  doubt  about  it.  At  one  time  it  had  not 
reached  the  Western  Church,  or  not  all  parts  of  it ;  but  after 
wards  it  did  reach  them  all.  The  high  things  it  contains 
concerning  the  Son  of 'God  have  made  many  depreciate  it. 
The  Latins  would  probably  think  it  too  Rabbinical  for  them. 
And  certain  severe  passages  relating  to  apostasy  would  deter 
some  men,  and  make  them  wish  to  avoid  it  and  keep  clear  of  it, 
whether  the  Novatians  had  any  concern  in  the  affair  or  not. 

Obj.  2.  If  Paul  was  the  author  why  did  he  not  put  his 
name?  He  might  have  good  reasons  unknown  to  us;  and  it 
would  have  been  absurd  for  him  to  assign  reasons  why  he  did 
not  own  himself  to  be  the  author  :  that  would  have  been  owning 
himself  to  be  so,  in  other  words.  Then  he  was  the  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles*;  and  the  Jews  were  much  prejudiced9  against 
him — perhaps  as  an  apostate.  He  wrote  indeed  to  converts; 
but  Christian  converts  could  retain  Jewish  prejudices:  his 


4  Lard.  vol.  vi.  p.  391,  &c. 

5  See  Lardner's  Works,   vol.  II.    p. 
472. 

0  Lard.  Works,  vol.  n.  p.  478. 


7  Richardson's  Canon,  p.  40,  and  p.  41, 
note. 

0  See  Gibson,  3d  Past.  Letter. 
9  Acts  xxi.  21,  2H.    Gibson,  as  before. 


C88 


ARTICLES     OF     RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  23. 


reasoning  with  them   shews   that   he  was  obliged  to  turn  their  III. 
own   arms  against  them,  which  is  a  sort  of  hostile   treatment. 
In  this  Rpistle  he  lowers  the  value  of  Judaism,  making  it  only 
introductory  and   temporary;  whereas  many,  even   Christians, 
wanted  to  make  it  perpetual. 

Obj.  3.  If  this  Epistle  was  so  well  attested,  how  could 
some  early  fathers  be  ignorant  of  St.  PauFs  being  the  author  ? 
We  reply: — Irenaeus  might  not  know  the  author,  but  he  knew  11. 
of  the  Epistle,  and  has  quoted  it.  He  was  Bishop  of  Lyons ; 
perhaps  the  Epistle  might  be  less  perfectly  known  in  France 
than  in  Judea,  so  soon  as  the  time  of  Irenaeus.  Tertullian 
ascribed  it  to  Barnabas ;  but  he  also  was  a  Latin  Father. 
It  was  no  bad  compliment,  however,  to  the  composition  to 
ascribe  an  Epistle  of  Paul  to  his  companion  and  fellow-preacher 
— to  give  it  to  one,  who,  if  he  was  not  an  apostle  in  the  highest 
sense,  was  as  near  to  one  as  possible. 

But  any  one,  who  happened  to  look  at  the  end  of  this 
Epistle,  might  say,  no  one  must  conclude  that  Irenaeus,  &c.  did 
not  know  it  because  they  were  Latin  Fathers ;  for  the  Epistle 
was  written  from1  Italy: — 'Eypd<prj  airo  Trjs  'IrctXms  Sid 
'Ti/uoOeov.  Suppose  it  was,  when  it  once  got  into  Judea  it 
might  be  as  if  at  had  been  written  in  Judea.  But  this  sub 
scription  is  of  very  doubtful  authority2.  It  might  be  occasioned 
by  "they  of  Italy  salute  you,''  just  before;  but  o\  cnro  T*J<> 
'IraX/a?  might  mean  persons  in  Judea,  or  elsewhere,  come 
hither  from  Italy3.  Then,  it  is  not  likely  that  this  Epistle  was 
sent  by  Timothy ;  for  the  author  says  he  would  come  with 
Timothy,  (Heb.  xiii.  23,)  if  he  came  soon.  Sending  implies 
separation  ;  and,  if  Timothy  delayed  his  journey,  it  is  probable  12 
the  Epistle  would  be  sent  by  some  other  hand.  In  the  authori 
ties,  Clemens  of  Rome  is  mentioned  as  having  known  the 
Epistle ;  but  he  might  know  it  on  the  return  of  travellers  who 
had  visited  their  brethren  in  the  East,  or  as  a  bishop  of  a 


1  In  the  Alex.  MS.  it  is,  from  Rome. 

2  Notwithstanding  the  little  credit  of 
this  subscription,  Lardner  is  of  opinion 
that  the  Epistle  was  written  from  Home ; 
and  there  is  a  great  weight  of  learning  on 
the  side  of  its  coming  from  Italy.     See 
Lard.  vol.  vi.  p.  413.     I  am  not  clear 
enough  in  the  order  of  the  incidents  at 
present,  to  contend  about  the  matter.     I 
may  however  adhere  to  what  I  &&y  first, 
that  it  might   be   unknown   at  Home, 


though  written  from  a  prison  there. 
Eusebius  says  it  was  controverted  be 
cause  not  received  by  the  Church  at 
Koine. 

3  In  Vigcr,  fl.  1.  13.  we  have  not  only 
ol  ti-TTu  TJJS  o-Toas,  for  Stoics,  but  ol  UTTO 
Tijs  Ke\TiK»7s,  for  Gauls,  Galli.  The  word 
aocXc/>ot,  added  in  MS.  Veles.,  is  not  well 
supported,  else  it  would  take  oft' the  force 
of  this  phrase. 


IV.  vi.  24.]  THE     HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  ()89 

1 1 1.  great  city.      Those  in   high   authority  have  intelligence  which 
does  not  reach  common  people. 

Obj.  4.  Some  have  thought  that  this  Epistle  could  not  ho 
written  by  St.  Paul,  because  the  style  and  manner  appeared 
unlike  St.  PauPs — less  vehement,  less  digressive — in  better 
Greek  than  could  be  expected  from  St.  Paul ;  and  more  politely 
expressed4.  Yet  we  may  say,  in  reply,  the  Epistle  to  the  He 
brews  is  by  no  means  deficient  in  spirit  and  energy  ;  nor  are  St. 
Paul's  other  Epistles  without  instances  of  fine  writing.  Then, 
whatever  made  St.  Paul  conceal  his  name,  would  make  him 
write  with  reserve  and  caution  ;  if  not  attempt  to  make  some 
alteration  in  his  style  and  manner  of  writing.  This  would 
naturally  give  a  polish  and  softness;  and,  by  abating  vehemence, 
would  prevent  digressions.  As  to  the  Greek,  I  shall  content 
myself  with  giving  you  the  hypothesis  of  Lardner*.  "My 
conjecture,"  says  he  "is,  that  St.  Paul  dictated  the  Epistle  in 
Hebrew,  and  another,  who  was  a  great  master  of  the  Greek 
language,  immediately  wrote  down  the  Apostle1  s  sentiments  in 
his  own  elegant  Greek.  But  who  this  assistant  of  the  Apostle 

13  was,  is  altogether  unknown6." — Any  person,  who  did  not  think 
himself  a  judge  of  the  elegance  of  Greek,  might  perceive,  that 
the  language  of  the  Epistle  was  more  pure,  clear,  and  free  from 
embarrassment,  than  St.  Paul's  usually  is.  It  is  above  Barna 
bas,  or  Clement.  What  primitive  Christian  do  we  know  of, 
except  Paul,  that  it  is  not  above?  With  regard  to  the  matter 
of  the  Epistle,  good  judges  esteem  that  to  be  truly  worthy  of 
the  pupil  of  Gamaliel'. 

24.  We  come  next  to  the  Epistle  of  James.  It  is  entitled 
'laKtofiov  TOU  'Aw-ooroXov,  and  addressed,  according  to  Lardner's 
opinion,  to  the  twelve  tribes,  that  is,  to  all  descendantss  of  Jacob 

4  This    was   the  opinion    of    Oriyen.   ',    about  his  expressions  than  in  his  other 
See  Lard.  vol.  n.  p.  477.  writings,   and   to    have   consulted  some 

5  Lard.  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  41(1.  |  friends  upon  them  :    this  would  suffici- 


6  On  review,  I  cannot  feel  contented 
with  this  conjecture  of  Lardner's.  If  it 
were  well  grounded,  the  Epistle  in  Greek 
would  have  the  air  of  a  translation,  con 
trary  to  what  is  quoted  by  him,  vol.  n. 
p.  477,  and  vol.  iv.  p.  269.  St.  Paul 
wrote  many  Epistles  in  Greek;  would  he 
have  employed  any  one  to  write  this  for 
him  ?  and,  if  he  dictated  at  all,  why  in 
Hebrew,  to  one  well  skilled  in  Greek  ? 
As  he  did  not  write  in  his  own  name, 
I  can  conceive  him  to  have  thought  more 

VOL.  I. 


ently  alter  his  style. 

7  See    Wotton's    Misna    from    Simon, 
Postscript  to  Preface. 

8  Lardner  is  of  this  opinion  :  see  Works, 
vol.  vi.  p.  «r»07.    In  a  Sermon  I  have  said, 
it  seemed  to  me  that  St.  James  meant  to 
correct  the  mistakes  and  faults  of  pious 
Christians,   who  had   abused   Christian 
doctrines,  so  as  to  evade  the  moral  pur. 
poses  of  Christianity.    I  feel  a  reluctance 
to  give  up  this  opinion,  though  I  wrote 
my   Sermon  in   IJi'l,   unmindful  of  this 


690 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  Vi.  25. 


probably,   whether   converted  to  Christianity  or  not.     It  is  a  III. 
Catholic  Epistle,   as   being  addressed  to  no  particular  city  or   14 
settled  church.     We  are  not  to  conclude,  from  its  being  called 
Catholic,  that  it  was  industriously  and  immediately  circulated 
all  over  the  Christian  world  :   probably  it  could  only  be  circu 
lated  within  a  moderate  compass. 

We  will  first  give  some  reasons  for  believing  it  to  be  written 
by  an  apostle  of  the  name  of  James,  and  then  produce  some 
witnesses  of  its  authenticity.  In  treating  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  we  took  the  opposite  method  ;  spoke  of  the  authority 
before  the  author ;  because,  that  Epistle  being  anonymous,  it 
seemed  best  to  give  it  a  credit  from  testimony,  before  we  proved 
it  to  be  the  composition  of  an  apostle. 

25.  1.  JameS)  the  author  of  this  Epistle,  was  an  apostle 
in  the  strictest  sense1.  It  may  seem  more  easy  to  prove  this 
than  it  really  is.  The  name  of  James  occurs  several  times  in 
Scripture,  without  any  mention  of  parents,  or  any  other  mark  to 
distinguish  one  James  from  another.  In  primitive  times  there 
was  no  need  of  any  such  mark ;  the  context  was  sufficient.  But 
we  have  James  son  Zebedee,  James  son  of  Alpheus,  James  the 
Less  (jut/CjOo?) 2,  James  the  Lord^s  brother,  &c. ;  and  some  of  the 
ancients3,  and  the  Greeks  in  modern  times,  have  conceived  that 
James  the  son  of  Alpheus  and  James  the  Less  might  be  different 
persons.  It  will  not  suit  our  plan  to  enter  very  minutely  into 
this  matter.  We  may  give  some  data  on  which  it  may  be  15 
solved.  Any  one  who  wishes  to  examine  it,  must  collect  all 
the  texts  in  which  James  is  mentioned,  and  compare  them  ; 
also  all  those  in  which  the  brethren  of  our  Lord  are  mentioned  ; 


Lecture,  written  in  1790.  It  seems  to  me 
a  less  difficulty  to  leave  some  expressions 
unaccounted  for  ( such  as  that  about  wars}, 
than  to  suppose  James  to  address  persons 
so  very  dissimilar  as  Jews  (supposed 
fixed  and  determined  in  Judaism)  and 
Christians;  or  to  suppose  him  to  say 
things  so  uninteresting  as  some  parts  of 
his  Epistle  would  be  to  Jews.  I  can 
conceive  James  to  have  had  enlarged 
notions,  and  to  have  seen  amongst  Jews 
persons  who  had  all  imaginable  deyrt  •/•>• 
of  inclination  to  Christianity  ;  and  some, 
moreover,  who  wanted  to  be  both  Jews 
and  Christians  at  the  same  time.  Nay, 
I  can  conceive  him  to  consider  all  Jews 
in  the  light  of  future  converts,  probable 
or  possible ;  or  as  those  whose  true  in 
terest  it  was  to  become  converts;  but  I 


cannot  conceive  him  to  address  Jews,  as 
Jews.  He  might,  according  to  this,  be 
unwilling  to  limit  the  number  of  those 
he  addressed ;  but  I  think  he  addressed 
no  one  whom  he  did  not  consider  as 
standing  in  some  relation  to  Christianity. 
He  might  bear  in  mind  that  the  Jews, 
who  were  imperfectly  converted,  might 
be  offended  by  any  perversion  of  Christian 
doctrines  to  immoral  purposes ;  and  he 
might  have  such  Jews  in  view,  sensible 
that  his  Epistle  would  be  read  by  many 
of  them. 

1  Some  account  has  been  given  of  the 
four  Evangelists,  Book  I.  chap.  xiii. 
sect.  ». 

-  Mark  xv.  40. 

;i  See  Gardner's  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp. 
474,  475. 


IV.  Vi.  25.]  THE     HOLY     SCRIPTURES.  691 

III. either  altogether  (Matt.  xiii.  55,)  or  separately.  If  we  divide 
the  twelve  Apostles  into  three  quaternions,  the  order  in  which 
they  occur  is  always  the  same :  the  first  four  are  always,  Peter 
(or  Simon,)  Andrew,  James  son  of  Zebedee,  and  John.  The 
second  four  are  always,  Philip,  Bartholomew,  Thomas,  and 
Matthew  (or  Levi).  The  third  four  are  always,  James  son  of 
Alpheus  (or  of  Cleophas.)  Simon  the  Canaanite  (or  Zelotes,) 
Jude  or  Judas  (or  Lebbeus  surnamed  Thaddeus,)  and  Judas 
Iscariot.  The  same  person  has  different  names,  we  see;  but 
the  Hebrew  names  might  take  sometimes  a  Latin  turn,  from 
the  connection  of  the  Jews  with  the  Romans ;  or  sometimes  a 
Greek  turn,  Greek  being  the  general  language.  The  inscrip 
tion  on  the  cross  was  written  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin. 

To  the  above  may  be  added,  that  James,  the  Lord's  brother, 
is  called  an  apostle  by  St.  Paul,  Gal.  i.  1.9.  But  after  all,  we 
must  content  ourselves  with  taking  the  result  of  inquiries  made 
at  other  times.  There  were,  then,  but  two,  probably,  of  the 
name  of  James ;  both  reckoned  in  all  the  four4  enumerations  of 
the  twelve  Apostles.  First,  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  and 
Salome5,  called  sometimes,  though  not  in  Scripture,  major,  or 
the  elder,  brother  of  John  the  Evangelist,  who,  with  his  brother 
John,  and  Peter,  was  present  at  the  transfiguration,  and  during 
the  agony  of  Christ  in  the  garden  ;  who  was  one  of  those  sur- 
16  named  Boanerges,  and  a  martyr  under  Herod r>.  Second,  James 
the  son  of  Alpheus.  or  the  less,  in  opposition  to  the  other 
James,  who  is  always  mentioned  first,  and  was  most  eminent 
and  most  employed,  brother  of  Jude,  and  of  Simon  Zelotes,  or 
the  Canaanite;  called,  for  some  reason,  or  in  some  respect,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord7;  and  by  early  Christians,  though  not  in 
Scripture,  James  the  just;  brother  also  of  Joses,  who  was  not 
an  apostle.  If  our  Epistle  was  written  by  either  of  these,  it 
was  written  by  an  apostle.  No  one  amongst  the  ancients,  who 
had  thought  about  it,  denied  that  it  was  written  by  one  James, 
a  man  of  very  .great  eminence  amongst  the  first  Christians. 
Now,  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  suffered  martyrdom  too  MIOH" 
to  write  it ;  it  was  therefore  (if  our  conclusion  concerning  the 
number  of  Jameses  is  right)  written  by  James  the  son  of 
Alpheus*.  Indeed,  the  things  which  are  said  of  James,  when  no 

4  Matt.  x.  2 — 4.     Mark  iii.  18.     Luke       on  the  Creed,  concerning  the  perpetual 
vi.  15.    Acts  i.  13.  virginity  of  Mary,  p.  l/-r),  fol. 

5  Salome  seems  to  have  been  the  name    |       "  A.  n.  44. 

of  the  mother  of  James  major,  and  of  the  9  Our  Church  takes  part  of  the  Epistle 

sister  of  James  minor.  of  James  for  the  proper  Lesson  for  St. 

r>  Acts  xii.  2.  j    Philip  and  St.  James,  May  1st.     The 

7  As  being  cousin.     See  Bp.  Pearson       festival  of  Jame?  major  is  July  2,~»tli. 

U 2 


692 


ARTICLES    OF    UELIGION. 


[IV.  Vi.  2-». 


explanatory  title  is  added,  and  after  the  death1  of  James  the  I II, 
son  of  Zebedee,  are  sufficient  to  shew  that  he  acted  in  an 
apostolic  character  ;  nay,  in  a  character  higher  than  the  gene 
rality  even  of  apostles,  after  Christ's  ascension.  When  Peter 
was  released  out  of  prison  by  the  angel,  as  soon  as  he  got  into 
an  house,  he  gave  this  order2,  "Go,  shew  these  things  unto 
James,  and  unto  the  brethren  ;" — as  one  would  send  to  let  a 
ruling  magistrate  know  any  thing,  and  add,  'and  tell  it  also  to 
the  other  persons  concerned.'  James'5  seems  to  preside  in  17 
making  a  speech  on  a  difficult  question,  and  what  he  dictates 
is  put  in  execution.  James4  presides  at  Jerusalem — the  ancients 
have  called  him  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  James  is  one  of  those 
who  reconcile5  Paul  and  Barnabas.  And  his  weight  appears  in 
the  obedience  of  Peter  to  a  commission  deputed  and  sent6  by 
him.  The  word  'Airoa-ToXov  in  the  title  is  in  most  manuscripts. 
And  though  the  word  Apostle,  like  other  titles  of  honour,  has 
got  extended,  yet  the  twelve  seem  to  have  been  upon  a  different 
footing  from  the  seventy,  or  any  other  disciples7.  It  need 
scarce  be  mentioned,  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  calls  himself 
the  servant*  of  Christ ;  whereas  he  whom  we  suppose  to  have 
written  it  is  called  by  St.  Paul0  and  the  Evangelists  his  brother. 
After  the  ascension  of  Christ,  James  became  his  minister  or 
servant :  he  was  never  a  strict  or  proper  brother,  nor  perhaps 
would  he  ever  have  called  himself  so — except,  it  might  be,  in 
boyhood.  To  the  Messias,  to  the  Lord,  he  was  servant;  though 
he  might  be  brother  to  the  carpenter's  Son. 

What  has  now  been  said,  with  regard  to  St.  James,  will 
make  us  ready  to  accept  the  evidence  of  antiquity  concerning 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  his  Epistle.  Internal 
evidence  we  can  expect  none,  except  the  reasonableness  and 
morality  of  the  composition,  considered  with  the  discretion  and 
amiable  goodness  of  St.  James's  conduct.  His  character  is  is 
drawn  by  Lardner,  vol.  vi.  p.  473.  Some  Latin  fathers,  who 
lived  at  a  distance  from  Judea,  do  not  speak  as  if  they  had 
been  acquainted  with  this  Epistle — as  Tertullian  and  Cyprian. 
Irenseus  is  thought  by  some  to  have  known  of  it,  at  least  in 


1  He  suffered   A.  n.  44.     Acts  xv.  is 
dated  51. 

2  Acts  xii.  17.  3  Acts  xv./13. 
4  Acts  xxi.  18.          5  Gal.  ii.  9. 

B  Gal.  ii.  12.  Lardner,  vol.  n.  p.  357, 
thinks,  with  Grotius  and  Beza,  that  Jews 
coming  from  James,  means  only  coming 
from  Jerusalem :  but  1  hesitate.  Peter 
might  be  too  familiar  with  Gentiles ;  the 


Jews  from  James  might  intimate  this ; 
Peter  might  grow  more  reserved  to  Gen 
tiles  than  seemed  to  himself  needful  or 
right ;  and  in  that  sense  he  might  dis 
semble. 

7  Luke  vi.  13.  Christ  called  his  f/i.fri- 
;jfes,and  distinguished  the  twelve,"  whom 
«/.sy)  he  named  apostles  " 

R  James  i.  1.  9  Gal.  i.  1!». 


IV.    Vi.    2().]  THK     HOLY     SC  l{  1 1'TU  R  KS. 

III.  some  degree  10.  Origen  says,  in  the  part  of  his  works  which  we 
have  in  Greek,  that  this  Epistle  is  ascribed  to  James ;  but,  in 
that  part  of  his  works  which  were  translated  into  Latin  by 
Ruffinus  (if  there  has  been  no  interpolation  made  by  Rufh'nus), 
he  speaks  of  it  as  the  Epistle  of  "  James  apostle  and  brother  of 
the  Lord,  and  divine  Scripture11."  If  we  found  a  MS.  so  in 
scribed  as  our  Epistle  is,  in  any  other  case,  we  should  not  think 
of  making  much  doubt  about  the  author,  except  some  particular 
difficulty  occurred.  But  I  will  not  dwell  more  upon  the  ge 
nuineness  of  St.  James's  Epistle,  as  it  is  attested  by  most  of  the 
witnesses  who  come  next  to  be  considered. 

26.  Now  we  may  call  our  witnesses  to  the  authenticity  of 
our  Epistle.  They  are  so  numerous1*,  that  I  can  only  make  a 
selection.  The  witnesses  of  authenticity  will  generally  be  wit 
nesses  of  genuineness;  conversely  not  so  often.  The  earliest 
19  fathers  seem  to  have  known  and  acknowledged  what  we  call  the 
Epistle  of  James  as  authentic.  Clement  of  Rome  and  Hernias 
are  to  be  consulted  particularly.  The  Apostolic  fathers  were 
more  moral  than  some  who  came  after  them.  Origen  has  been 
already  mentioned.  Eusebius  and  Jerom  should  be  added;  the 
former  of  whom  says,  that  the  Epistle  was  known  to  most l3  ; 
and  the  latter,  that  gradually,  in  process  of  time,  it  obtained  u 
authority :  which  accounts  agree  with  what  we  have  said  about 
the  manner  of  the  circulation  of  the  sacred  writings.  We  are 
moreover  told,  that  the  Epistle  of  James  was  translated  into 
Syriac  with  the  first  of  Peter  and  the  first  of  John. 

The  particular  obstacle,  by  which  this  Epistle  might  be  im 
peded  on  its  first  outset,  seems  well  assigned  by  1S  Bishop  Gib 
son.  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  universally  received, 
and  this  seemed  to  contradict  it  with  respect  to  justification  by 
faith.  We  may  add,  its  being  moral  more  than  doctrinal :  it 
seems  frequently  of  use  to  observe,  that  the  fathers  were  more 


10Clemens  Alexandrinus  occasions  some 
difficulty.  See  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  n. 
p.  226.  Lardner  is  very  candid  in  not 
reckoning  any  of  his  passages  to  refer  to 
James.  I  do  not  see  how  to  account  for 
James's  Epistle  not  having  made  its  way 
to  Alexandria  before  194 :  but  that  might 
not  be  the  case ;  Clem.  Alex,  might  only 
omit  James,  or  have  no  occasion  to  quote 
any  passage  from  a  writing  rather  moral 


der  St.  James,  his  Epistle.  And  the  same 
might  be  done  also  with  regard  to  Jle- 
brews,  &c. — Consult  also  Gibson's  third 
Past.  Let.  Richardson's  Canon,  p.  4'J. 

1:!  By  the  way,  this  is  not  said  about 
the  Epistle  of  James  as  distinguished 
from  the  other  dv-riXeyofieva  ;  it  is  said  of 
them  «//,  though  James  is  specified  first. 

14  Whitby.  And  in  Gibson,  p.  lw, 
there  is  a  second  passage  about  Jerom 


than  doctrinal;  nay,  one  seemingly  avoid-   \   stronger  than  the  first.     Up.  Gibson  is 


iiif/    the  mention   of    doctrines,    except 
when  endeavouring  to  prevent  their  being 
abused.         n  See  Lard.  vol.  n.  p.  479. 
12  See  Index  to  Lardner's  \Vorks,  un- 


not  strong  enough  about  Eusebius;  yva>- 
pifitav   o/uojs   TOIS  Tro/XXoIs.      L.  U.  s.  2.r>. 
See  also  Lardner,  iv.  'J-JJ. 
'•'•  Third  Past.  Letter,  p.  li«l. 


694 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  27. 


divines  than  moralists.  Lardner  also  mentions  as  an  obstacle, III. 
its  being  thought  by  some  that  there  were  more  than  two 
Jameses  (Lard.  vol.  iv.  p.  253)  :  this  is  also  mentioned  by 
Bishop  Gibson.  Martin  Luther  went  farther  when  he  rejected 
this  Epistle  on  account  of  what  it  contains  with  regard  to  faith, 
after  it  had  been  many  centuries  established  in  the  canon  *. 

Notwithstanding  this  exception  of  some  Antinomians,  I  shall  20 
venture  to  read  you  a  passage,  which  Whitby  quotes  from  Es- 
tius,  a  celebrated  Divine  of  Holland  or  Flanders,  who  lived 
till  the  year  l6l32.  With  this  Bishop  Gibson  concludes  his 
account;  and  I  will  conclude  mine  with  Dr.  Lardner's  final 
opinion 3. 

27.  Our  next  object  is  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter ;  which 
Grotius  thinks  may  have  made  two  Epistles ;  the  former  con 
taining  the  two  first  chapters,  the  latter,  the  third  chapter. 
But,  as  this  supposition  has  no  support,  and  is  formed  only  in 
order  to  support  the  notion  that  this  Epistle  was  written  by 
Simeon,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  we  may  pass  it  over,  and  proceed 
to  our  proofs.  Here  we  will  first  take  internal  evidence,  then 
external,  having,  in  the  present  case,  something  with  which  we 
can  compare  the  composition  in  question. 

Peter,  mentioned  in  the  Gospels,  was  unquestionably  an 
apostle  in  the  highest  sense.  If  this  Epistle  was  written  by 
him,  that  is  enough.  We  must  be  allowed  to  go  upon  the 
supposition  that  he  wrote  ihejirst  Epistle  of  Peter,  as  upon  an 
axiom ;  and  then  we  may  produce  reasons  why  this  second 
Epistle  was  written  by  the  author  of  the  first.  The  names 
Simon4  Peter  do  not  belong  jointly  to  any  other  person.  No 
other  Peter  could  with  propriety  be  called  "  an  apostle  of 
Christ"  in  any  sense.  The  author  of  this  Epistle  was  present 
at  our  Lord's  transfiguration,  as  appears  by  chap.  i.  18.  He 
writes  "  this  second  Epistle"  to  the  same  persons  with  the  first : 
(though  this  argument  will  not  have  weight  with  those  who 
suppose  Peter  to  begin  a  new  Epistle  with  what  we  commonly  21 
call  the  third  chapter.)  In  the  second  verse  of  the  third  chap 
ter  is  a  second  claim  to  apostleship  :  "  the  commandment  of  us 
the  apostles  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour."  If  we  take  for  granted 
the  authority  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  we  may  prove  that  of  the 
second  of  Peter  from  it;  for  Jude  refers  to  the  second  of  Peter; 
— I  think  I  may  say  no  less  than  fourteen  times.  And,  in  the 
17th  verse,  Jude  puts  Paul  on  the  same  footing  with  the  writer 


1  See  Bp.  Hallifax,  Serm.  vii.  p.  212. 
Jer.  Jones,  1. 10. 
3  Bishop  Gibson  seems    to    refer   to 


Jerom  for  this  passage,  p.  109  ;  but  there 
must  be  a  false  print. 

3  Lard.  Works,  vi.  505.       4  2  Pet.  i.  1 . 


IV.  Vl.  27-]  THE     HOLY     SCKI PTU11KS.  695 

1 1 1.  of  what  we  call  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter;  for  they  are  the 
two  who  speak  of  mockers  or  scoffers  to  come  in  the  last  time*. 
In  John  xxi.  18,  19,  our  Saviour  foretels  St.  Peter's  death;  in 
2  Pet.  i.  14.  the  writer  says,  "  I  must  shortly  put  off  this  my 
tabernacle,  even  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  shewed  me" 
St.  Peter  is  said  to  have  been  crucified  at  Rome  in  Nero's  per 
secution6,  a  little  while  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  : 
he  says,  7  in  his  first  Epistle,  "  the  end  of  all  things  is  at  hand." 
John  xxi.  18,  19,  seems  to  imply  a  violent  death. 

Some  reasoning  has  taken  place  about  a  supposed  difference 
in  regard  to  style  between  the  first  and  second  Epistle  of  Peter. 
But  Black  wall  thinks  there  is  scarce  any  difference.  It  is  not 
easy  to  prove  any  thing  upon  this  point  to  others ;  each  person 
must  judge,  or  feel,  for  himself8. 

22  The  general  scope  of  this  Epistle  seems  to  me  such  as  might 
have  been  expected  in  a  second  Epistle.  Converts  had  used 
the  privileges  of  Christianity  (as  some  have  done  in  all  ages)  as 
an  exemption  from  moral  obedience :  St.  Paul's  obscurity  had 
forwarded  this  error.  James  was  obliged  to  set  himself  about 
rectifying  it ;  and  so  was  St.  Peter,  in  a  supplementary  address. 
With  this  view  compare  "  elect"  1  Pet.  i.  2,  with  2  Pet.  i.  10 ; 
and  read  2  Pet.  i.  1,  3,  5 — 11,  or  even  to  15;  ii.  10,  &c.,  to  the 
end ;  (all  about  persons  who  presume  upon  their  holiness  to  be 
vicious;)  chap.  iii.  11;  to  the  end;  particularly  ver.  15  and  16 
about  St.  Paul:  comparing  that  with  James  ii.  14,  &c.  There 
are  indeed  some  things  about  false  teachers,  which  might  be 
occasioned  by  other  circumstances;  as  also  a  presumption  ob 
viated,  that,  because  the  second  coming  of  Christ  had  not  hap 
pened  already,  as  expected  by  some,  it  need  not  be  feared  at  all. 
On  the  whole,  we  must  either  own  that  St.  Peter  wrote  the 
Epistle  before  us,  or  say  that  some  person  forged  it,  intending 
to  impose  upon  the  Christian  Church.  The  latter  supposition 
is  scarcely  admissible,  because  the  author  must  be  a  good  and 
pious  Christian ;  and  such  an  one  would  not  take  pains  to  de 
ceive.  We  have  indeed  spoken9  of  some  who  were  well-mean 
ing,  and  yet  did  endeavour  to  recommend  their  writings  and 


3  Compare  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  and  2  Tim.  iii. 
1,  with  2  Pet.  iii.  3.  Yet  I  doubt  whe 
ther  Paul  comes  up  quite  to  the  idea  of 
scoffers  or  mockers  : — "  despisers  of  those 
that  are  good,"  2  Tim.  iii.  3,  comes  the 
nearest. 

6  See  Lardner,  vol.  vi.  chap,  xviii. 


1  Pet.  iv.  7. 


8  The  second  chapter  is  lofty,  by  con 
taining  insinuations  against  false  teachers, 


and  others,  perhaps,  pretending  to  take 
the  lead  in  sanctity  without  being  the 
best  moral  men.  These  insinuations  must 
be  the  most  decorous  when  made  in  allu 
sions  to  writings  deemed  sacred  :  but  such 
must  raise  the  style.  St.  Paul  uses  the 
same  kind  of  style  about  the  fornicator  at 
Corinth. 

9  Salvian,  &c.    Book  I.  ch.  xii.  sect. 
4. 


696 


ARTICLES     OF     ItELIGlON.  [I  V.   vi.  28,  2Q. 


make  them  useful,  by  affixing  a  great  name  to  them;   but,  in  III, 
the  present  case,  the  writer  must  not  only  intend  to  recommend 
his  Epistle,  but  actually  to  be  believed  to  be  Peter T,   by  all 
Christians.      Those  who  think  the  marks  sufficient  can  receive 
the  Epistle  only  as  Peter's  ;   if  it  is  not  that,  it  is  not  what  it  23 
pretends  to  be. 

28.  Nevertheless,  we  may  add  any  external  testimony,  for 
the  authenticity  of  our  Epistle.     Or,  if  external  testimony  at 
the  same  time  proves  its  genuineness,  no  confusion  will  ensue. 
Grotius  was  desirous  2  to  have  it  pass  for  the  work  of  Simeon, 
Bishop   of   Jerusalem,  and   successor   to   St.   James ;    though 
without  any  warrant  from  antiquity. 

Clemens  Rornanus  makes  repeated  allusions  to  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter :  Hermas  seems  to  have  known  it :  Justin 
Martyr  may  be  produced  as  a  witness :  Irenaeus  has  one  pas 
sage,  at  least,  to  our  purpose ;  and  one  is  as  good  as  more, 
when  sufficiently  clear.  Origen  may  be  worth  citing;  and 
Firmilian,  though  his  expression  is  ambiguous ;  it  is,  "  Paul 
and  Peter  in  their  Epistles."  (Lard.  vol.  u.  p.  548).  I  will 
only  add,  that  though  these  passages  afford  arguments  for  the 
authority  of  the  Epistle,  silence  of  authors  does  not  prove 
equally  against  it.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  Epistles  to 
the  Thessalonians ;  yet  I  remember  observing,  in  a  pretty  long 
course  of  reading,  that  I  never  met  with  any  reference  to 
either  of  them. 

After  the  fourth  century,  no  more  doubt  remained. 

29.  We  proceed,  in  the  next  place,  to  the  second  and  third 
Epistles  of  St.  John.     That  these  should  be  at  first  neglected 
as  minute,  does  not  seem  wonderful.    Even   Eusebius  seems  to 
speak  of  them  with  indifference ":  yet  afterwards,  in  the  Council 
of  Laodicea,  '\wdvvov  Tpeis  are  necessary  to  make  up  the  CTTTO. 
KaOoXiKcti     And  so  long  as  they  were  considered  as  private  let-  24- 
ters  to  two  individuals,  they  would  be  little  attended  to;  what 
ever  made  them  regarded  as  catholic4 :,  and  called  by  that  name, 
did  probably  occasion  their  being  universally  respected.     Some 
have  understood  the  word  Kvpia.  (2  John  1)  to  mean  a  church* ; 
but  that  does  not  appear  consistent  with  what  follows.      If  we 
understand  the  letters,  or  epistles,  as  intended  to  remedy  two 


1  Compare  1  Pet.  iv.  7,  with  2  Pet. 
iii.  4  ;  and  1  Pet.  i.  9,  with  2  Pet.  i.  5; 
and  1  Pet.  i.  2,  with  2  Pet.  i.  10.    I  could 
wish   more  of  these  comparisons   to  be 
made. 

2  Grotius  in  2  Pet.    Lardner,  vi.  5H5. 
a  Euseb.   Eccl.   Hist.   in.   25.     Also 


Origen;  see  Lardner's  Works,  vol.   it. 
p.  467. 

4  The  second  and  third  of  John  were 
always    called    Catholic    Epistles.     See 
before,  sect.  15. 

5  See  the  opinions  collected  in   Lard, 
vol.  vi.  chap.  xx.  p.  593,  &c. 


IV.   vi.  2f).]  THE     HOLY     SC111 1>TU  K I  .s.  697 

III. evils  very  common  amongst  Christians,  though  they  were 
written  with  a  view  to  two  particular  instances  of  those  evils, 
they  might  soon  be  perceived  to  be  generally  applicable,  and  so 
come  to  be  universally  read,  in  private  and  public,  and,  in  time, 
to  be  received  as  the  injunctions  of  an  apostle. 

In  order  to  make  thejirst  of  these  two  small  Epistles  seem 
natural  and  generally  useful,  we  need  only  suppose  that  some 
of  the  Docette  6  had  attempted  to  instil  their  notions  into  the 
mind  of  a  devout  and  respectable  mistress  of  a  family  ;  and 
that  she  had  given  them  rather  too  much  encouragement.  In 
such  a  case,  reproof  was  to  be  applied  before  the  disorder  had 
got  to  too  great  an  height;  it  was  also  to  be  sweetened  by  pure 
and  unaffected  benevolence.  Right  reproof  always  allows  the 
real  good  qualities  of  the  person  reproved. 

In  order  to  make  the  second  Epistle  seem  easy  and  intel 
ligible,  we  need  only  suppose  an  opulent  and  hospitable  con 
vert,  of  the  name  of  Gaius,  to  have  been  somewhat  too  atten 
tive  to  a  preacher,  or  minister,  called  Diotrephes,  who,  being 
25  of  an  ambitious  and  turbulent  disposition,  wished  to  assume 
some  authority  of  his  own,  or  to  abuse  such  as  was  committed 
to  him  ;  and,  as  a  means  of  succeeding,  depreciated  St.  John, 
or,  possibly,  his  first  Epistle.  The  attention  shewn  to  this 
aspiring  minister  may  be  supposed  to  have  had  the  particular 
inconvenience  of  causing  Demetrius  to  be  neglected — a  plain, 
modest,  orderly  preacher  7. 

In  such  a  case,  Gaius,  or  Caius,  was  to  have  the  praise  due 
to  his  hospitality ;  and  beneficence  was  to  be  encouraged  in 
general.  The  evil  was  to  be  complained  of,  and  the  offender 
reproved  ;  but  it  needs  but  be  briefly  stated — it  needs  not  be 
pressed,  or  exaggerated.  Indeed  the  fault  was  properly  in 
Diotrephes,  not  in  Gaius  ;  but  Gaius  was  to  be  cautioned 
against  giving  it  any  encouragement. 

The  situations  which  I  have  imagined  (for  I  speak  not  as 
determining  any  thing)  were  probably  not  unfrequent  about 
the  end  of  the  first  century  ;  and  therefore  the  best  means  of 
obviating  their  inconveniences  might  be  made  public,  and  be  of 
general  concern.  This  they  would  naturally  be  by  degrees:  and 
these  letters  would  be  of  general  use,  not  only  to  those  who  ran 
into  the  same  faults,  but  to  those  ministers  who  had  occasion 
to  check  and  reprove  them.  They  both  seem,  at  bottom,  to 

6  Art.  ii.  sect.  4,  28. 

7  Lardner,    I   see,   thinks   Demetrius 
may  have  carried  the  letter.     He  struck 
me  as  some  way  opposed  to  Diotrcphes  ; 


n 


and  still  does.     But,  as  a/c/r/,  at  It 
may  be  allowed  to  mention  what  occurred 
to  me  on  reading  the  Epistles. 


698 


ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  30. 


intend  reproof  for  some  different  sorts  of  unsteadiness;  and  III 
probably  the  one  for  yielding  to  heresy,  and  the  other  for 
yielding  to  ambition.  But,  as  I  have  marked  out  the  path 
by  which  the  student  may  investigate  the  genuineness  and 
authority  of  such  writings,  I  will  content  myself  with  referring 
to  authors  before  mentioned — Lardner,  Richardson,  Bishop 
Gibson,  &c. 

As  a  thing  peculiar  to  these  two  small  Epistles,  I  may  just  26 
mention,  that  John,  by  calling  himself  the  Elder,  made  some 
imagine  that  they  were  written  by  John  the  elder,  or  Presbyter, 
mentioned  by  Eusebius,  and  not  by  the  Evangelist ;  but  there 
is  every  reason  to  think  that  St.  John  only  gave  himself  this 
title  on  account  of  his  old  age,  and  in  order  to  avoid  assuming 
too  much  consequence.  He  wished  to  appear  to  the  devout 
matron,  and  the  hospitable  Gaius,  rather  in  the  light  of  an 
elderly  friend,  than  in  that  of  a  person  who  had  authority  to 
dictate  and  enjoin. 

30.  Nor,  after  the  specimens  already  given,  do  I  mean  to 
be  long  upon  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  The  writer,  by  calling 
himself  "  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James,"  must 
mean  to  be  thought  that  person  who  is  always  reckoned  in  the 
third  quaternion  of  the  twelve  Apostles;  and  is  called  Jude, 
Judas,  Lebbeus,  and  Thaddeus ;  and  "not  Iscariot  V  An 
Epistle  so  inscribed  must  be  taken  as  the  composition  of  him 
who  inscribes  it,  if  we  find  no  particular  reason  to  the  contrary. 
And  there  is  a  presumption  against  the  idea  that  a  pious  Chris 
tian  would  endeavour  to  deceive.  This  was  before  observed, 
with  regard  to  the  author  of  the  latter  Epistle  of  Peter,  which 
Epistle  Jude  means  to  second.  We  might  here  produce  evi 
dence.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Tertullian,  and  Origen  are  full 
in  our  favour  ;  nay,  even  Hernias  might  be  adduced,  if  not 
Polycarp  and  Irenoeus 2.  But.  as  what  difficulty  there  has 
been  has  arisen  from  the  credit  seemingly  given  in  our  Epistle  27 
to  some  fabulous  stories,  we  may  confine  ourselves  to  that  point. 
1.  Supposing  the  stories  not  true,  but  only  believed  to  be  true, 
there  seems  no  reason  why  Jude  might  not  allude  or  refer  to 
them,  in  the  way  of  an  argumentum  ad  hominem.  For  so 
doing  he  would  have  had  the  highest  authority.  2.  Supposing 
them  true,  but  conveyed  down  only  by  tradition,  Jude  had  cer 
tainly  as  good  a  right  to  introduce  them  as  Paul  to  introduce 


1  John  xiv.  22. 

2  1J96.    It  appears,  from  Mr.  Marsh's 
Translation  of  Michaelis's  Introduction, 
that  the  latter  gave  up  the  authority  of 


the  Epistle  of  Jude.  But  I  do  not  ap 
prehend  that  more  will  follow  from  this, 
than  from  Martin  Luther's  giving  up  the 
authority  of  the  Epistle  of  James. 


IV.   vi.   31.]  THE    HOLY     SCRIPTURES. 

Hl.Jannes  and  Jambres*.  But,  3.  We  are  told  it  is  possible  that 
Jude  might  refer  only  to  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  ;  and  that  what  he  says,  which  seems  not  to  be  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament,  might  be  collected  from  it,  and  expressed 
in  his  own  manner,  according  to  some  allowed  modes  of  speak 
ing,  interpreting,  and  applying.  The  Hebrews  used  feigned 
speeches ;  so  that  one  of  them  might  give  that  which  he,  from 
circumstances,  supposed  Enoch  might  probably  foretell,  as  if 
Enoch  had  foretold  it*.  The  rabbins,  says  Grotius,  use  to 
ascribe  to  angels  and  great  men  that  which  might  probably  be 
said  by  them.  Thus  2  Pet.  ii.  7,  8,  about  Lot,  is  all  supposed 
to  be  collected  from  the  Book  of  Genesis.  However,  it  does 
not  seem  to  be  denied  that  St.  Jude  may  have  made  use  of  a 
traditional  prophecy  of  Enoch — or  of  an  Hebrew  book  now 
lost ;  though  Jude  8,  and  9,  is  fully  thought  by  Lardner  to 
be  taken  from  the  three  first  verses  of  the  third  chapter  of 
Zechariah. 

If,  however,  we  can  defend  the  writer  on  the  least  favour 
able  supposition,  we  shall  have  no  need  to  apologize  for  him  on 
any  other.  If  Jude's  mode  of  using  Scripture,  by  putting 
speeches  into  the  mouths  of  great  personages,  was  known  and 
28  used,  it  would  not  deceive  the  Jews,  though  it  might  disgust 
and  perplex  others :  yet  did  not  Livy  do  much  the  same  ? 

Lardner  (vol.  vi.)  thinks  this  Epistle  was  written  to  all  con 
verts,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  :  to  me  the  allusions  to  Jewish 
writings  seem  too  frequent  for  this  opinion. 

31.  The  last  book,  of  which  we  are  to  speak,  is  the  Apo 
calypse — which  was  probably  written  by  St.  John  the  Evange 
list ,  in  the  island  of  Patmos,  about  the  last  year  of  Domitiaris* 
reign,  A.  u.  96;  though  not  published  till  St.  John  went  from 
his  banishment  there  to  Ephesus,  some  little  time  afterwards, 
where  he  presided. 

The  proof  of  the  authority  of  this  book  will  be  wholly  a 
proof  of  its  genuineness  ;  or  that  it  was  written  by  St.  John 
the  Evangelist.  Such  is  the  nature  of  the  book,  as  to  make 
it  unlikely  that  it  should  be  received  on  any  other  account. 
Indeed  Dionysius6  of  Alexandria  did  hold  that  it  was  written 
by  another  John;  and,  in  later  times,  Erasmus  and  Luther7 
have  allowed  the  authority ',  and  denied  the  author ;  but  Dio- 


3  2  Tim.  iii.  8. 

4  See  Lard.  Works,  vol.  v  r.  p.  619,  &c. 

5  This  is  not  unquestioned:  some  have 
thought  the  Apocalypse  was  written  be 
fore  the  year  70.      Some,    at  different 
times;    and    collected.    Sir  I.  Newton, 


Michaelis,  and  \Vetstein,  are  all  for  the 
earlier  date ;  but  they  go  a  good  deal  on 
the  style:  the  arguments  for  the  later 
date  seem  to  me  much  the  more  forcible. 

6  See  Lardner's  account  of  him. 

7  See  Bp.  Hallifax's  7th  Serm.  p.  211. 


7oo 


ARTICLES    OF     RELIGION. 


[IV.  vi.  31. 


nysius  having  had  a  particular  end  in  view,  and  the  two  others  1 1 1. 
being  comparatively  moderns,  they  need  not  be  considered  par 
ticularly  by  us. 

The  genuineness  of  the  Apocalypse  seems  capable  of  a  most 
full  and  complete  proof — as  may  easily  be  seen  by  looking 
into  Lardner' s  chapter  on  this  book,  in  his  Supplement }  to  his 
Credibility.     I  will  only  select  a  few  arguments;  some  internal,  29 
others  external. 

Internal  marks  may  be,  the  author's  calling  Christ  the 
Word2 — and  also  the  Lamb;  his  using  the  word  Amen3  four 
times ;  and  the  phrase  peculiar  to  St.  John,  of  overcoming  the 
world,  or  the  wicked  one;  for  being  unmoved  under  trials4. 
Lardner  is  most  struck  with  this  last  mark. 

A  few  external  proofs,  or  a  few  witnesses  may  be  adduced. 
Papias,  Justin  Martyr,  Melito,  and  Irenagus,  may  be  sufficient. 
And  what  they  say  cannot  be  collected  more  easily  than  by 
means  of  Lardner's  Credibility  :  either  in  the  body  of  that 
work,  or  in  the  Supplement.  Lardner 5  thinks  IrencRUs's  tes 
timony  alone  sufficient  to  establish  the  genuineness,  and  conse 
quently  the  authority,  of  the  Apocalypse. 

Yet  it  must  not  be  dissembled  that  the  witnesses  cannot  be 
traced  down  to  the  present  times  in  an  uninterrupted  succes 
sion.  The  Apocalypse  is  not  in  the  canon  of  the  Council  of 
Laodicea,  nor  in  the  catalogues  of  Cyril  and  others.  Chrysos- 
tom  takes  no  notice  of  it  in  his  voluminous  works.  What  may 
this  mean  ?  The  case  seems  to  be,  that  Cains  a  presbyter,  pro 
bably  a  Roman,  and  Dionysius  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  were  de 
termined,  at  all  hazards,  to  overthrow  the  errors  and  expose 
the  follies  of  those  who  believed  in  a  voluptuous  millennium  ,• 
and,  when  that  state  seemed  to  be  promised  in  the  Apocalypse, 
they  proceeded  to  lessen  the  authority 6  of  that  book.  Their 
arguments,  together  with  the  difficulties  contained  in  the  book,  30 
seem  to  have  been  the  real  reasons  why  Christians  began  to 
doubt  about  it,  even  after  its  credit  had  been  in  a  manner  esta 
blished.  Its  credit  would  be  the  more  easily  overthrown,  at  any 
time,  as  but  few  copies,  comparatively,  would  be  taken  of  it ; 
and  therefore  few  would  be  able  to  defend  it.  Nay,  some 
doubts  existed  after  it  had  been  again  established,  in  a  very 
great  measure,  and  these  continued  for  a  length  of  time  :  and 


1  Chap.  xxii. 

2  Compare  Rev.  xix.  13,  with  John  i. 
1  ;  1  John  i.  1 ;  also  Rev.  v.  «,  12,  with 
John  i.  3fi. 

•'5  Michaelis.    See  end  of  John,  and  of 
1  John  and  2  John. 


4  Compare  Rev.  ii.  75  &c.;  iii.  21,  &c. ; 
xxi.  7,  with  John  xvi.  33.  1  John  ii.  13, 
14;  iv.  4;  v.  4,  5. 

''  Mrorks,  vol.  ii.  p.  170. 

fi  Before,  sect.  15. 


IV.  VI.  32.]  THE     HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

II I.  before  the  Reformation,  disputes  being  dropped,  the  book  had 
become  neglected  and  almost 7  forgotten. 

The  times  immediately  preceding  the  Reformation  were 
times  of  ignorance ;  but,  with  regard  to  the  more  enlightened 
times  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  it  has  been  said  that  the 
Apocalypse  was  received  in  the  Western  Church  before  it  was 
received  in  the  Eastern,  contrary  to  what  we  have  said  of  things 
published  in  the  East.  This  seems  a  misrepresentation.  Pa- 
pias,  Justin,  Melito,  were  all  of  the  Eastern  Church  ;  and  Me- 
lito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  a  church  which  was  one  of  the  seven  that 
were  addressed  in  the  book,  also  went  farther  into  the  East 
than  Sardis  in  search  of  canonical  books.  Go  lower,  we  have 
little  to  say.  But,  on  the  whole,  the  truth  seems  to  be,  that 
at  first  the  proofs  that  St.  John  wrote  the  Apocalypse  were  too 
strong  to  be  resisted  ;  that  it  made  its  way  all  over  the  Chris 
tian  world  (though  Christians  in  general  would  always  be  at 
tached  to  other  sacred  books  in  a  greater  degree)  ;  but  that, 
ere  long,  it  not  only  occasioned  perplexity,  but  gave  rise  to  er 
ror,  folly,  dispute.  It  occasioned  disgust;  it  was  opposed, 
laid  aside :  this  more  in  some  places  than  in  others,  according 
to  particular  circumstances:  but,  in  fact,  it  was  laid  aside  more 
31  in  the  East  than  in  the  West.  Nevertheless,  this  probably  was 
accidental ;  that  is,  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  any  difference 
between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches. 

What  is  said8  about  the  Council  of  Laodicea9  seems  rea 
sonable — that  they  were  selecting  books  for  public  reading  to 
the  people  ;  the  Apocalypse  was  not  adapted  to  that  use  ;  and 
such  is  the  judgment  of  the  Church  of  England. 

32.  Though  we  are  speaking  immediately  of  the  authorifi/ 
of  the  Apocalypse,  yet  its  great  obscurity  makes  one  naturally 
say  a  word  or  two  of  its  meaning.  Many  learned  men  have 
professed  not  to  understand  it :  Lardner  does  this  10  with  the 
greatest  plainness  and  simplicity.  Calvin  seems  to  have  done 
the  same,  and  the  learned  Scaliger  commends  him  for  it  n  : 
"  Sapuit  Calvinus,"  says  he,  "  qui  non  scripsit  in  Apocalypsin." 
Yet  Joseph  Mede,  fellow  of  Christ's  College,  who  died  about 
the  middle  of  the  l?th  century12,  has  made  wonderful  efforts  to 


7  See  Bp.  Hallifax,  7th  Sermon. 

8  Richardson's  Canon,  p.  15.    Gibson, 
Lardner  as  before :  the  words  are,  ua-u 
del  f3i(3\ia  dvaytvuxrKecrQai. 

9  Laodicea     was    one    of    the    seven 
Churches  addressed. 

10  Vol.  vi,  p.  <>r>. 


11    IVhitbi/  was  learned;  but  he  declined       the  provostship  of  Dublin,  itc. :  he  died 
commenting  on  the  Revelation:  lie  has    '    in  ll!.")}{,  aged  only  ."»_'. 


left  a  Dissertation  on  the  Millennium. 
He  appears  to  have  been  a  candid,  con 
scientious,  and  industrious  man;  but  1 
am  not  clear  that  he  was  a  man  of  vei  \ 
great  penetration  or  critical  sagacity.  He 
died  in  1J2»»,  aged  88. 

12  Joseph  Mede  is  said  to  have  refused 


702  ARTICLES    OF    RELIGION.  [IV.  vi.  33. 

explain  it;   and,  I  suppose,  has  been  the  means  of  our  now  HI. 
having  so  easy  and  pleasing  a  way  laid  open  to  some  view  of  its 
contents,  in  the  Sermons  of  Bishop  Hurd  and  Bishop  Hallifax, 
preached  at  the  Lecture  founded  by  Bishop  Warburton\     The 
general  idea  of  the  contents  is,  that  it  contains  prophecies  relat 
ing  to  the  fortunes  of  the  Christian  Church,  which  history  is  33 
continually  interpreting  and  unfolding.     A  short  account  may 
be  found  in  Bishop  Percy  s  Key  to  the  New  Testament. 

33.  Having  now  gone  through  the  four  parts  of  our  Ar 
ticle,  it  seems  proper  to  take  some  notice  of  one  expression  in 
it — "of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church;"1 
especially  as  we  have  been  just  now  speaking  of  controverted 
books. 

Probably,  when  these  words  were  used,  nothing  more  was 
thought  of  than  the  Old  Testament.  For  the  last  sentence,  or 
paragraph,  about  the  New,  begins  as  if  nothing  had  been  said 
about  it  before.  And  one's  idea,  in  reading  the  Article,  is,  '  We 
receive  all  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  have  been 
always,  in  a  manner,  received ;  but  as  to  those  which  the  Ro 
manists  receive,  though  the  ancients  speak  doubtfully  of  them, 
we  wish  them  to  be  read  publicly,  as  having  a  good  moral  ten 
dency,  but  we  cannot  allow  them  to  have  authority  in  settlino- 
doctrines.  So  far,  we  think  of  nothing  but  the  Old  Testament: 
after  this,  of  nothing  but  the  New.  The  New  Testament  we 
receive  as  the  Romanists  do."  The  words,  "  and  New"  have 
the  air  of  an  insertion 2,  by  way  of  correction.  Indeed  they 
had  better  be  omitted.  The  whole  phrase,  "of  whose  authority 

was  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church,11  is  only  incidental a 

kind  of  epithet,  meaning  uncontroverted.  And,  if  it  was  not 
strictly  proper,  it  need  not  occasion  scruple,  so  long  as  it  did 
not  affect  the  declarations,  strictly  so  called,  of  our  Article.  It 
does  not  imply  that  we  receive  one  book  more  or  less. 

If  any  one  did  not  find  this  sufficient   to  make  him  easy, 
when  he  used  the  expression  in  question,  recollecting  the  dvn~  33 
Xe7o^u6i^a,  he  might  consider  farther  : — 

1.  That  an  Article  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the  occasion* 
on  which  it  was  made.     Ours  was  made  with   a  view  to  the 
Church  of  Rome ;  and  they  have  never  doubted  the  authority 
of  those  books  of  the  New  Testament  which  were  once  contro 
verted. 

2.  It  cannot  perhaps  be  said  properly  that  the  Church  ever 
doubted  of  the  authority  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  &c. 

1  Book  I.  chap.  xvii.  sect.  19. 

2  I  find  nothing  in  Rennet's  Collations  to  favour  this.  s  Book  III.  chap.  ix. 


IV.   Vi.  34.]  THE     HOLY     SCRIPTURES.  703 

III. Individuals  have  doubted,  but  no  act  of  the  Church  ever  pro 
claimed  them  doubtful.  The  Council  of  Laodicea  omitted 
the  Apocalypse ;  but  that  has  been  accounted  for :  and  that 
Council  was  formed  only  by  deputies  from  the  provinces  of 
Asia  Minor. 

3.  Those  persons  may  properly  be  said  never  to  have 
doubted  who  never  had  opportunity  of  getting  good  information. 
Whatever  time  elapsed,  in  any  case,  before  Christians  got  suf 
ficient  evidence  of  the  authority  of  any  book,  during  that  time 
they  are  not  to  be  considered  as  doubting ;  and,  if  they  never 
doubted  after  they  got  such  evidence,  they  never  properly 
doubted  at  all.  If  a  man  believed  the  genuineness  of  Rowleys 
Poems,  as  soon  as  the  proofs  of  it  were  digested  in  his  mind, 
he  might  be  said  never  to  have  doubted  of  it ;  and,  if  that  were 
the  case  with  all  men,  it  might  properly  be  said,  that  their 
genuineness  had  never  been  questioned.  What  time  should  be 
allowed  for  sufficient  evidence  to  pervade  the  whole  Christian 
world,  so  that  we  might  say,  if  the  controverted  books  were 
received  in  that  time,  they  were  never  properly  doubted,  it  may 
be  difficult  to  settle  precisely,  at  this  distance  of  time  ; — but, 
34  in  settling  it  as  well  as  we  are  able,  we  must  take  into  our  minds 
all  those  obstacles  which  have  before  been  described  *. 

34.  We  may  come  now  to  what  we  have  called  the  appli 
cation  of  our  Article.  We  may  keep  up  the  idea  of  its  consist 
ing  of  the  same  parts  as  before 5 ;  though  little  need  be  said  on 
any  of  them. 

As  to  assenting*  a  person,  who  mentioned  what  passed  in 
his  mind  when  he  gave  his  assent,  might  perhaps  say  something 
of  the  following  sort : 

'  It  is  in  vain  to  dispute,  except  we  settle  some  common 
principles  with  our  adversaries.  As  therefore  the  Romanists 
exalt  the  authority  of  their  Church,  and  of  traditions  in  gene 
ral,  we  must  declare  that  we  only  allow  the  authority  of  Scrip 
ture  ;  though  we  grant,  that  whatever  is  fairly  deduced  from 
Scripture  has  scriptural  authority.  But,  as  different  ideas  have 
been  annexed  to  the  word  Scripture,  it  seems  best  to  specify 
what  writings  we  comprise  under  that  term.  We  receive  no 
books  which  the  Romanists  reject ;  but  some,  which  they  hold 
to  be  canonical,  we  consider  only  as  improving ;  and  these  we 
agree  to  read  publicly,  in  imitation  of  early  Christians,  and  in 
compliance  with  the  wishes  of  those  who  may  have  been  brought 
up  to  revere  and  esteem  them. 

4  Sect.  10.  s  Art.  i.  sect.  9. 


704  AKTICLES    OF     RELIGION.  [IV.  vi.   34. 

'We  hold  the  same  books  of  the  New  Testament  to  belli. 
authentic  which  the  Romanists  do.1 

As  to  mutual  concessions,  it  does  not  appear  how  a  dispute 
concerning  first  or  fundamental  principles  admits  of  any  com 
promise. 

And  lastly,  with  regard  to  improvements •,  those  belonging 
to  this  Article  are  improvements  in  studying  Scripture,  and  in 
settling  the  provinces  of  written  and  unwritten  authority.  New 
proofs,  of  the  genuineness  and  authority  of  any  sacred  books, 
would  also  come  under  the  present  class  of  improvements ;  as  35 
would  any  new  lights  with  regard  to  the  ancient  Jewish  books 
which  we  commonly  call  the  Apocrypha. 

The  short  rule  for  improving  our  knowledge  of  Scripture 
is,  to  get,  as  nearly  as  possible,  into  the  place  of  those  whom  it 
was  most  immediately  intended  to  suit — to  give  ourselves  their 
ideas  and  feelings.  It  is  these  which  must  enable  us  to  limit 
and  apply  expressions,  such  as,  from  the  imperfection  of  human 
language,  are  too  general  and  extensive  to  be  taken  literally. 
In  order  to  get  into  the  situation  of  others,  and  learn  their  ideas 
and  feelings,  we  must  acquaint  ourselves  with  the  history  of 
their  customs  and  opinions,  and  with  all  the  objects,  natural1 
and  artificial,  which  most  usually  engaged  their  attention. 
Fresh  travels,  undertaken  by  good  antiquaries,  naturalists, 
artists,  with  due  encouragement,  might  continually  promote 
this  purpose. 

And,  when  we  could  not  investigate  immediately  the  ideas 
and  feelings  of  those  for  whom  Scripture  was  first  intended,  we 
might  find  them  out,  in  some  degree,  by  their  effects  ,•  which 
are  to  be  understood  by  means  of  ecclesiastical  history. 

J  See  Book  I.  chap.  x.  and  xi. 


END   OF   THE    FIRST   VOLUME.